Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL

[Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Royal Navy

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that the strength of the Royal Navy will be adequate for the discharge of Great Britain's defence responsibilities during the next few years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr A. E. P. Duffy): Yes Sir.

Mr. Lane: On the morrow of the closure of HMS "Ganges", in which a number of us did our initial training, is not the Minister worried that the total manpower and womanpower of the Royal Navy—about 68,000—is now at it lowest level since the latter part of the nineteenth century? Is the Minister satisfied that that is adequate for Britain to fulfil her responsibility in the face of the growing

Soviet naval threat, particularly in submarines?

Mr. Duffy: It is 100 years since we had a comparable figure but no meaningful comparisons can be made between the capabilities of the Navy 100 years ago and today. We do not settle for that. Measures are in hand to improve the Navy's capabilities with the introduction of new ships and equipment to keep pace with improvements in the Warsaw Pact's wartime capabilities.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend resist pressures, from whatever source, and ensure that there is no further reduction in the naval shipbuilding programme?

Mr. Duffy: So far as it rests with me. I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Minister assure the House that he is fully aware of the implications of the new exclusive economic zone and the patrolling problems that will result for the Royal Navy? Will they not require additional vessels?

Mr. Duffy: Yes. That has been put in hand. The House debated the issue only a few hours ago, and I can tell hon. Members that a new Island class of 12 ships is in hand. The first was laid down earlier this year and it is intended that all will be completed within two years and be in operation very soon afterwards.

Low-Flying Aircraft

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the inquiry into recent crashes of low flying training aircraft near Caernarvon and elsewhere on the West Wales coastline; and if he will take steps to reduce the frequency of low-flying training over Gwynedd and Dyfed.

The Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): The boards of inquiry have not yet completed their work, but there is no basis, as revealed by their interim findings, on which to justify any reduction in low-flying training.

Mr. Wigley: While expressing sympathy for the families of those who were involved in these accidents, may I ask the Minister to accept that for every flight


that ends in disaster there are thousands that cause distress and fear to the inhabitants in the area over which the flights take place? Is he aware that the week before last there was nearly a serious accident in Gwynedd, when a low-flying aircraft came face to face with a car on the brow of a hill? Will he examine the possibility of changing the routes of such flights so that the same communities do not always bear the brunt of them?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I join with the hon. Gentleman in sympathising with the families of those gallant young men. No one enjoys low flying. The RAF tries to avoid the more densely populated areas and distributes low flying activities throughout the United Kingdom. On the question of the rate of accidents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to cause undue worry in that respect. The Gnat trainers have suffered only two accidents from low flying in the last 10 years and the Hunter has experienced only 10 accidents in 22 years.

Mr. Goodhew: Does the Minister agree that it is a good thing for the Welsh Nationalists that it is the RAF which has been flying low over their area and not the Soviet air force?

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is a good thing for the United Kingdom that it is the RAF that flies over our territory. I emphasise that low-flying must remain an essential part of the training requirement if the RAF is to retain its operational capacity.

Mr. MacFarquar: Does my hon. Friend not agree that although the RAF may make attempts to distribute low-flying operations, the proportion of low flying over populated areas is still too great? Does he agree that more use could be made of virtually unpopulated areas for that type of training? Will he seriously investigate that, and do something about it?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Since taking office I have given particular attention to low flying, because I am aware of the great distress that it can cause to local communities. So far as it is operationally possible, I am satisfied that the RAF takes great care to avoid densely populated areas. The difficulty is that there are insufficient areas of low population density to meet our requirements.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister inform the local people precisely when the flights will take place, so that they can brace themselves to put up with them?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Whenever possible the RAF attempts to maintain prior communication with local communities and to keep hon. Members and the public fully informed. I am holding a public relations conference in and around Wales fairly shortly, which I hope will result in my being able to give further reassurance on this matter to the people of Wales.

Training Facilities

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will conduct a survey to estimate the under-use of training facilities in his Department.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): In so far as we have spare capacity for training, we are already aware of vacancies where they exist and keep the industrial boards informed.

Mr. Canavan: Would it be possible to divert some defence resources towards the creation of jobs in manufacturing and other industries by handing over to the Training Services Agency any under-used facilities for training civilian apprentices, for example, so that young school leavers may have enhanced employment opportunities of getting jobs in industry? Would not that help the country's unemployment and industrial problems and prevent a massive waste of public money and resources?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. We have offered over 200 training places for apprenticeships, and I hope that they will be taken up.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the operations and rôle of the Armed Forces of the Crown in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operations of the Army in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The Army continues to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout Northern Ireland at levels appropriate to the operational needs in each area. In response to recent upsurges of sectarian violence, particularly in certain areas of Belfast, extra troops were moved in from reserves in the Province. The security forces were therefore able to step up the level of patrolling and checking, and prevent a worsening of the situation. We intend to maintain the ability to respond flexibly in this way to meet the changing demands of the situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciated his presence during yesterday's debate on Northern Ireland security? Having heard it, does he not think that when the Opposition make constructive suggestions for closer co-ordination between the Army and other security forces and for closer border co-operation those suggestions should be carefully considered, instead of being turned down out of hand? Will he do just that, in the interests of the Armed Forces and bringing to an end the troubles in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland less than credit in saying that he brusquely rejected the Opposition's suggestions. He gave careful consideration to all that the Opposition said. I reiterate that we now have on the border a high level of co-operation with the Irish authorities.

Mr. Tinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that during a recent visit to study the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland my colleagues and I were impressed by the work done by the security forces in such difficult conditions, and by the degree of support that we found for the policy of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following the abandonment of detention and the restoration of the courts and the normal rule of law and order? We found support both for the Army and for the present degree of co-operation with the authorities across the border.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The forces in

Northern Ireland are always pleased to welcome hon. Members, and were delighted by the visit of the Parliamentary Labour Party Defence Group.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been almost exactly 5,000 bomb explosions in Northern Ireland since the emergency began? Will the Minister give special recognition to the members of the Bomb Squad—who have borne the brunt of this campaign—for their skill and courage? If a special allowance is not thought appropriate, will the Minister consider the award of a special clasp to the Northern Ireland Medal?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will not expect an answer directly to that supplementary question, but I shall certainly consider what he said.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been reports that the power and range of weaponry available to our troops in Northern Ireland have not been comparable with the power and range of weaponry available to the IRA? Will he take steps to ensure that there is comparability of weapons?

Mr. Brown: I reiterate what I said in the Army debate on 6th May. The General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, is satisfied with the weapons he has. The Army in Northern Ireland has a wide range of weapons, which can easily match the range of any weapon that a terrorist possesses. Every effort will be made to continue to improve the weapons available.

France (Defence Minister)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to have an early meeting with his counterpart, the French Minister of Defence.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

Mr. Forman: When the Minister's right hon. Friend has a chance to meet M. Bourges, will he bear in mind that the French Government recently put forward a plan to double their defence expenditure over the next six years, raising it from 17 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total national budget? Will the Secretary of State contrast that with the


irresponsible proposals made by his hon. Friends below the Gangway to make further cuts in defence expenditure of up to £1,000 million?

Mr. Rodgers: Most comparisons are invidious. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that comparison, I remind him that France spends less of her GNP on defence than does Britain. It is, therefore, arguable that there is more room for the French to increase their defence expenditure than there can be in this country. What we have to decide is how much we have to spend to provide adequate defence—no more and no less than that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has it not always been Labour policy that there should be no joint Anglo-French nuclear force while France remained outside NATO, as this would inevitably lead to a German finger on the nuclear button? Will the Minister give an undertaking that even if France rejoins NATO there will be no reversal of that policy?

Mr. Rodgers: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that no consideration has been given to the idea of an Anglo-French nuclear force.

Mr. Arnold: How does the Minister of State characterise the recent pronouncement by the French President on France's attitude towards NATO?

Mr. Rodgers: As typically French.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAOR

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost in foreign exchange in 1976 of maintaining British troops in West Germany.

Mr. William Rodgers: The estimate given in the 1976 Defence White Paper is £413 million for 1976–77.

Mr. Ovenden: What is the estimated benefit to this country from the offset agreement we have with the West German Government, and what efforts is my right hon. Friend making to increase that contribution which, over recent years, has been derisory compared with the cost of maintaining British forces in Germany?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that the offset we have been receiving in recent years has fallen short of the figure I should like to see, partly because of changes in exchange rates and partly because of inflation. The German Chancellor and the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), discussed this matter some time ago, and I hope that we shall find a way towards a solution which is satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ever since the signing of the Paris Treaties it is doubtful whether there has been any year in which Germany has met her obligations? Since that time the amount by which the Germans have defaulted must run to nearly £1,000 million. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Germans what is their explanation for that, having regard to the United Kingdom's economic difficulties?

Mr. Rodgers: I think my right hon. Friend is less than fair to refer to default. The fact is that we have received about £220 million under an agreement reached with the German Government in 1971, which it has faithfully honoured. Perhaps I should say that we maintain our forces in BAOR out of self interest, as part of our collective security through NATO, and not just out of kindness. We may get a much higher level of offset, but we should bear that fundamental fact in mind.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present broad assessment of the cost in redundancy payments of the proposed cuts in the strength of BAOR.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: We have no plans to cut the strength of BAOR.

Mr. Tinn: I appreciate that reassurance, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there is talk elsewhere of a further cut of 30,000 men. Can he say what the cost would be if this cut were to be implemented, which I would strongly deplore?

Mr. Brown: The proposal that my hon. Friend referred to does not, of course, reflect Government policy. Clearly there would be redundancies. If


the cut were made at a stroke, all involved would be made redundant. This would cost about £90 million over three years in redundancy payments, even after allowing for the savings on pay. The redundancy costs would be £306 millions, against pay savings of £217 millions.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Why have the Government cut the SACEUR Strategic Reserve?

Mr. Brown: I was not aware that the Government had cut the SACEUR Strategic Reserve. I do not think that that point arises directly out of the Question, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to table a Question I shall give him an answer.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman should be aware from the Government's last two White Papers that the mobile force contribution of this country has been cut considerably. When will he realise that?

Mr. Brown: That hardly arises out of the Question.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next visit BAOR.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to British forces in Germany.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, but I shall be doing so during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Goodhart: As the cost of BAOR has increased by more than £50 million since the publication of the defence White Paper, because of the fall in the value of the pound, will the Minister give a progress report on the offset negotiations? If there is no quick outcome to these negotiations, how does the Minister intend to find the extra cost?

Mr. Brown: All I can say is that the negotiations with the Germans on the offset agreement are proceeding. I cannot say when a result will be reached.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: When he does make a visit to BAOR will the Minister say, as the representative of the Government with the greatest balance of payments

deficit to the representative of the country with the greatest balance of payments surplus that it is time that the aspirations of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were realised, in order to get an equitable agreement for Britain in the negotiations on the offset agreement?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that we shall get an equitable agreement, but when I go to BAOR I shall be visiting soldiers and not German politicians.

Mr. Blaker: Since BAOR will no doubt be somewhat shaken—as we are on the Opposition side of the House—to discover that the Under-Secretary was unaware that we have cut the contribution to SACEUR Strategic Reserve, what does the Under-Secretary propose to do to restore BAOR's confidence?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been to see BAOR often, and he knows well enough that there is no question of a lack of confidence either in BAOR or the Army generally, anywhere in the world.

Mr. Greville Janner: When my hon. Friend visits BAOR, as I have just done briefly, will he take the opportunity to answer questions from the troops at all levels about the effect which the fluctuations in the pound has had on what their money may buy in Germany?

Mr. Brown: Yes. I am quite certain that, just as I got my ears bashed last time in BAOR, I shall get the same battering when I go again, but I shall certainly answer questions.

Mr. Roper: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage cut there would need to be in the Army's equipment budget for every percentage point of the proposed cuts in manpower in BAOR; and what loss of jobs this would represent in British industry.

Mr. William Rodgers: Precise calculations are difficult, but between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the Army's equipment programme is attributable to BAOR in the current year. Thus significant reductions in BAOR would clearly lead to cuts in the equipment programme, which in turn would place thousands of jobs at risk.

Mr. Roper: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Can he give an estimate of the initial impact on the British economy of a 40 per cent. cut in BAOR?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think I could give that information. Certainly if it were sudden it would be very drastic, not only in terms of the equipment programme, about which my hon. Friend asked, but in terms of the need to absorb in this country all those returning Service men, with, in our view, very grave consequences in terms of the strain on our social services.

Mr. Newens: But is it not a fact that, over the years that British troops have been stationed in Germany, the German economy has, in effect, received an annual subsidy from the British taxpayer? Does my right hon. Friend think that it is reasonable that we should continue to allow ourselves, in our present economic difficulties, to subsidise one of the strongest economies in the world? Does it make sense?

Mr. Rodgers: If it were thought to be a subsidy it would not make sense at all. But it is quite mistaken—the calculations are extremely complex—to regard the question of offset and foreign exchange as a subsidy. Nevertheless, it is right that we should have a larger amount of offset than we have at present, and I hope very much that we shall get it.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will pay an official visit to British forces in Germany.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister satisfied with the amount of training time allocated to BAOR at present, and is he also satisfied that no false economies are being made in that direction?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. Training in Germany has considerably improved in recent times. There is now no shortage of fuel. Obviously we keep our eye on the amount of fuel we use because of the cost involved.

Tritium (BNFL Contract)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

Miss Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with BNFL to supply tritium.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 29th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Thorne: Since it would take something like 50 years to be able to use tritium for peaceful energy purposes, does the Minister agree that the Government's intentions in this respect only raises the doubt whether they are now pursuing a policy of an independent nuclear force for Britain?

Mr. Rodgers: Whether it raises that doubt is a question for my hon. Friend and not for me. I can only say that that is not the case at all. It is entirely a matter of cost and convenience that we have decided to produce tritium for ourselves

Miss Richardson: A number of hon. Members will find it mystifying that the Government should have taken this decision on tritium when we have been getting it from the United States for 18 years. Since this will provide only about 50 jobs, does the Minister not consider that the money could be better spent in finding and providing jobs in manufacturing industry, instead of using it in this way?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that my hon. Friend and others are mystified. I confess


that I am particularly mystified by her approach, considering that there has been no change of policy on nuclear weapons, which has been made clear on many occasions. On the question of cost, and in respect of the 50 jobs, I support the decision, particularly when the jobs will come in a development area.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that these jobs are placed in development areas, so that they will be welcomed, although in fact, they ought to be looked at much more critically from the point of view of health and environment?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman, who has a special interest in this matter, ought to be satisfied on health and environment grounds. I do not think that there is anything to fear in this respect and I think that 50 jobs, even though the number is small, is better than no jobs at all.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister recall the manifesto commitment, that Labour believes that government should be more open to the public? In view of this, will he provide more details about the contract with British Nuclear Fuels in regard to cost? Is it because the cost is so enormous that, with the potential of several thousand teachers unemployed because we refuse to reduce classes to 30, it will be looked upon as a mistaken decision? How does my right hon. Friend answer the growing concern among the trade union and Labour movements that Ministers seem, by evasion, to be acting as public relations officers to the brasshats in the Department?

Mr. Rodgers: I wish that my hon. Friend would show more generosity. The matter is entirely straightforward. The facts have been given to the House by my right hon. Friend, and I have tried to confirm them today. I do not believe that there is any mystery or doubt. It is a simple decision and is entirely justified.

Military Manoeuvres (Notification)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been given to NATO military authorities by the Warsaw Pact Powers and vice versa over the past year in connection with the notification of military manoeuvres in terms of the Helsinki Agreement.

Mr. William Rodgers: Since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on 1st August 1975, the NATO countries have notified eight manoeuvres and the Warsaw Pact countries have notified three manoeuvres, including two by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Arnold: Does the Minister of State agree that while there has been some progress in this important but difficult area, there must nevertheless be continuing concern at the rapid expansion of the Soviet armed forces? What can be done to close the rapidly expanding gap between what is available to the Warsaw Pact Powers, in the way of men and material, and what is available to us?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree absolutely with what the hon. Gentleman said about progress. We should be satisfied that, whatever shortcomings there may have been in the Helsinki Agreement, this part of it seems to be working reasonably well. As to the second part of the question, the answer lies in the continuing preparedness of NATO and in the progress of the MBFR talks in Vienna.

Mr. Macfarquhar: I welcome the exchanges that have taken place in this regard, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that they did not involve the exchange of any real secrets, or information that could not have been obtained by any other means? His Department may be far more concerned about the possible one-way leakage of genuine secrets from NATO if Italian Communists get into the Italian Government. Will he confirm that his Department is engaged in consultations with other NATO partners on this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has asked a lot of perhaps loosely related questions. I agree that the Helsinki Agreement does not involve an exchange of what might be termed secrets, and we would not expect that to be the case. Nevertheless, it is a useful way of monitoring the activities of the Warsaw Pact and, in return, of NATO.
On the second question, we should await the decision of the Italian people in the Italian election before deciding how this may effect the Italian stance in NATO.

Cyprus

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the sovereign base areas of Cyprus.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Cyprus.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the sovereign base areas the Ministry of Defence is in the position of being in charge of both civil and military affairs? Will he confirm that it is no part of British policy to try to expel, in advance of a settlement, the refugees who are at present in the sovereign base areas?
Will my hon. Friend have another look at the civil rights of those British citizens who are living in the sovereign base areas, since we are constantly told that these areas are just the same as any other part of British soil?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I recognise my hon. Friend's keen interest in the subject, but the questions that he has posed would be more appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs than to me.

Senior Officers (Public Statements)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his permission was obtained for the recent public speeches by Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Humphrey, at Eastbourne, and by Air Chief Marshal Sir Dennis Smallwood in a BBC interview; and if it remains the policy of his Department that serving officers and senior civil servants should not make public statements on politically sensitive issues.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The rules for obtaining clearance for public statements, and the policy on discussion of politically controversial issues, remain unchanged; and both were observed on both occasions.

Mr. Allaun: But is not the size of our arms bill not only a military but a hot economic and political issue, and is not this the breach of a valuable safeguard against military interference with our democracy? Will the Minister ask his brasshats to keep their mouths shut in public, whatever they may say privately to him?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I assure my hon. Friend that the speech by the Chief of the Air Staff was seen by me and approved by me before it was delivered. The briefing prepared for Sir Dennis Smallwood was also seen by me and approved by me before he gave that broadcast. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that if we are to have an informed debate on defence the more information that is available the better it is, provided that that information is made available by people in the Ministry of Defence or the Armed Forces who act in accordance with the rules. I am satisfied that on both occasions they did so.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I thoroughly agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but will he try to straighten out the disagreement among the members of the Tribune Group about open government, which we heard this afternoon?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I think that my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group, like all my hon. Friends in the Labour Party, are deeply concerned about the full process of democracy in this country. I believe that any genuine, unbiased reading of the statement that has been made by the national executive committee in respect of Labour's programme for 1976 would lead the reader to the conclusion that it is a genuine and proper discussion document for future policies, which may or may not be implemented by a future Labour Government.

NATO Defence Ministers

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend attended the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee ministerial meetings last week, and is in Brussels today for the Nuclear Planning Group. Inevitably he regrets his absence from the House at question time.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister of State confirm that the NATO military programme—which I understand was agreed by the meeting of Ministers last week, to which he has just referred—foresees that up to 1982 the member countries will continue to spend about the same percentage of their gross national product on defence


as now? Will he confirm that the Government accept that policy?

Mr. Rodgers: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we ought to await the communiqué, which, following the usual convention, will be published at the end of this round of NATO meetings; but I have no immediate reason to dissent from the views that the hon. Member expresses.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Have the Opposition agreed to pair the Secretary of State to enable him to go to this very important meeting?

Mr. Rodgers: The circumstances were such that the importance of the meeting necessitated my right hon. Friend's attendance, whatever the cost might have been.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We understand the reason for the Secretary of State's absence—of which he gave me notice—but in view of the obvious need to strengthen the southern flank of NATO, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that as Spain moves away from the Franco régime the British Government will not oppose Spain's joining NATO?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give that undertaking at the present time, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to report to the House on his return.

North Sea Oil Rigs (Protection)

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied adequate forces are available for the protection of North Sea oil rigs.

Mr. Duffy: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Banks: Will the Minister confirm that the Royal Navy has at present overall responsibility for protecting the North Sea oil rigs against sabotage and attack?

Mr. Duffy: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister in a position to answer a question I asked him at about 4.15 this morning, when I suggested that there should be smaller but cheaper fast frigates available, which can be purchased at a cost less than the £40 million currently spent on frigates and would enable us to have the proper answer to anything

that may be thrown against us in the North Sea?

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I promised to let him have an answer, and I will see that he gets one. But I also pointed out to the House that the Island class of patrol vessels, which are already in hand—and of which I spoke earlier this afternoon in reply to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)—are considered, in regard to their hull shape, endurance and sea-keeping qualities, to be appropriate to the task in hand. If this is discovered not to be the case, the matter that the hon. Member raises will certainly be further explored, and urgently.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether the Navy is properly trained to distinguish between an oil rig and a ship?

Ship Construction

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of a £1,000 million cut in defence expenditure on ship construction and the number of jobs involved.

Mr. William Rodgers: A cut of such a size would put in jeopardy the jobs of many of the 25,000 men employed in the shipyards on warship construction and of many others employed by sub-contractors. It would be a massive blow to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom, with severe consequences for the development areas.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister note that I, too, would like him to spurn any blandishments for cuts in this area of activity, in view of the continuing unemployment in the yards at Humberside and many other estuaries in the North of England?

Mr. Rodgers: These are delicate matters, on which views are strongly held. It is plain that it is not possible to make massive cuts in defence without consequences on equipment, and it is not possible to make massive cuts in equipment without the loss of job opportunities.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister say whether there has been any discussion between the NATO Allies as to what would occur if this country were to agree to cut defence by a sum of


£1,000 million? Will he also say whether, in his opinion and that of his Department, it would create a greater chance of world peace if cuts were to take place?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No." There has been no such discussion, because our NATO Allies think that such a prospect is preposterous. As for my hon. Friend's second point, it must be recognised that cuts of this size, however well-intended, would so severely undermine the position of NATO that we could see a complete reversal of the situation that has existed since 1945.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has not Japan been able to sweep the market in shipbuilding because she has devoted her research and development expenditure to civil rather than military effort?

Mr. Rodgers: Alas, that is not the case. I remind my hon. Friend that all the research carried out in regard to naval vessels is also available for use in civilian shipbuilding. There is an important amount of spin-off from the present naval shipbuilding programme.

Land (Nugent Report)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Nugent Committee's recommendations on defence have so far been carried out in full; and what percentage he intends to carry out.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Approximately 60 per cent. of the Nugent Committee's recommendations on individual sites have been carried out in full. We shall carry out the remaining recommendations, which were accepted in our statement on the Report of the Defence Lands Committee 1971–73, Cmnd. 5714, as far as possible bearing in mind the economic situation and the changing circumstances to which I drew to the attention of the House in the debate on 17th January 1975—[Vol. 884, c. 900].

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that a figure of 60 per cent. is very disappointing, in view of the fact that the Nugent Committee was generous in its assessment to the Ministry of Defence? Does he also agree that as a result of the recent review of defence procedures, there should be

further reductions in the requirements for land?

Mr. Brown: No, I do not agree that a figure of 60 per cent. in such a short time represents a poor performance. In regard to defence reviews we now propose to release the Nancecuke site, which Nugent recommended we should retain. But the concentration of defence forces in the European threatre and the need to economise in the use of overseas training areas puts even greater pressure on training areas in the United Kingdom.

Shipping (Protection)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's reaction to SACLANT's plan for protecting allied shipping outside the NATO area.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his assessment on NATO's study report concerning the protection of merchant shipping outside NATO's area of military responsibility.

Mr. Duffy: My Department has provided SACLANT with its professional comments on his draft contingency plan for the protection of shipping outside the NATO area in time of war. SACLANT will be forwarding the plan to NATO headquarters for approval in due course.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister bear in mind that contingency plans are not much use unless there are adequate communications in the exercise of those plans?

Mr. Duffy: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Luce: In view of the great pressure on NATO forces in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, will the Minister say what measures NATO is prepared to take to protect those routes?

Mr. Duffy: There is no question of extending NATO's southern boundary.

Mr. Goodhew: What is the Secretary of State for Defence doing to try to interest other NATO Powers in this part of the world, since the area is so vital to our defence interests?

Mr. Duffy: My right hon. Friend has already taken that precise course. In other words, he has already brought this


matter to the attention of our NATO Allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEWISHAM

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Lewisham.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is always welcome in the borough of Lewisham, of which he and his family were such distinguished residents for so long? Is he further aware that the borough of Lewisham has a good record of race relations, although there is now great fear that the difficulties in west and east London, involving the cancer of racialism, are spreading to other parts of London? Does he agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury's condemnation of racialism, and will he ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions has sufficient resources to bring to trial very quickly indeed those people against whom there is a case of infringement, through speech, of the Race Relations Act?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. I have always found Lewisham a very happy place, particularly during my courting days many years ago in Labour Party committee rooms during General Elections. To turn to more serious matters—[Interruption.] There is always room for a little fun and games in between canvassing.
If I may turn to the serious part of the supplementary question, I am sure that the whole House welcomed the terms of the remarks made by the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, in which he condemned the deplorable events of recent days. I especially welcomed his call to the Christian community to beware falling into a trap.
As regards the other considerations, I can tell my hon. Friend that some of these matters are already in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no intimation that he does not have the necessary resources available. However, that is a matter for my right hon. and

learned Friend the Attorney-General. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.
I wish to add that all of us who have experience of the Asian community feel that they are extremely industrious and hard-working citizens and therefore are entitled to live without fear, as are other citizens in this country. I know that the police will fully carry out the duty of protecting every citizen in this country. We shall bring the due processes of law to bear against those who abuse the rights of those citizens.

Mr. Lane: When the Prime Minister next visits Lewisham or any other inner city area, will he do something to correct the growing impression that the Government are failing to keep up the attack on urban deprivation, because these matters have become increasingly urgent, requiring more resources to be devoted to those areas?

The Prime Minister: I shall look into this matter. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman said is not true. The other day I had a meeting with a group of my colleagues who believe that one of the major priorities of government relates to urban deprivation in inner cities, where young people are growing up, sometimes without jobs. I shall examine the point made by my hon. Friend because it seems to me that this is one of the festering cankers that we shall have to remove. It is a question of priorities. The hon. Gentleman calls for more resources. I must tell him that if the Government are to spend more resources in this sphere they will have to spend less in others.

Mr. Cyril Smith: If the Prime Minister visits Lewisham and has any talks there about race relations, will he bear in mind that the problems of good race relations are not confined to London boroughs? Will he remember that there are many parts of the country, my own constituency being one of them, which have large numbers of immigrants living in them? If the Government are to have talks with any groups about the fostering of good race relations—and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House subscribe to the view expressed by the Prime Minister in his last answer —will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any such talks involve Members from more than one side of the House


and, indeed, from more than one part of the country?

The Prime Minister: That is a very constructive suggestion. Of course, the Government must take responsibility, and if leaders of the communities wish to see Ministers such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department they must see them. But I am certain that the Home Secretary, through the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Commission, or in any other way, will be anxious and ready to involve Members of all parties to try to present a united front on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on counter-inflation policies to Post Office workers in Bournemouth on 23rd May.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 25th May, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: If he were to make that speech today, would my right hon. Friend feel able to agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the trade unions have acted with patriotism and responsibility in the matter of the present pay policy, and would he feel able to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his prognostication that the pay policy is likely to collapse and fail? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unpatriotic and irresponsible to make such statements? Does he also agree that it shows about the same level of political judgment as the Leader of the Opposition has shown in the past three weeks?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree that the pay policy of the TUC is likely to fail this year. In my view the right hon. Gentleman's judgment will prove to be wrong. That is because the policy has secured not the force of law but something that is more important, namely, the voluntary consent of free men freely voting through their own organisations. I believe that it will stand up.
The right hon. Gentleman's article, which I have before me, points out some

of the difficulties that will ensue. He is right in some of those matters, and he is doing no more than repeating some of the statements that have already been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I have pointed out, the longer a policy of this sort goes on the more the difficulties that follow, but that is no reason for indicating that a policy which, as I believe, will receive overwhelming support tomorrow is likely to fail in the period up to August 1977.

Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware that his decision to stay in my constituency when he made his speech was very much welcomed, and that he always will be welcome in my constituency? But as the Government's policies are leading to a continuing depreciation in sterling, which is itself having an effect on the Government's fight against inflation, is the right hon. Gentleman willing to maintain the point that he made in his speech about the Government's confidence in getting inflation down to a level of 6 per cent., 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. by the end of 1977?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I see no reason to depart from that forecast. The agreement that the trade unions are recommending to their members tomorrow will take effect from August and will run until August 1977. As many wage negotiations are not concluded until the spring, the impact will be felt right through until the spring of 1978. That, coupled with other fiscal and monetary policies of the Government, leads me to the conclusion that if we carry through our policies rigorously and in a determined way we shall be able to reduce inflation very substantially.

Mr. Sedgemore: Assuming that the rumours are true and that we are about to witness the love story of the century, through the reunion of the harlot and the sailor, will the Prime Minister care to ask each of them whether they intend to carry out their counter-inflation policy through monetarist measures, through neo-Keynesian economic measures or—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the hon. Member


for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) withdraw that remark?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member wait until after Question Time? I shall deal with the matter then. There are only five minutes left for Prime Minister's Questions. I am afraid that I must tell the House—I am not trying to dodge the issue—that I heard only the phrase "the harlot and the sailor". I do not think it was applied to anyone in particular. I am not trying to avoid the issue. I did not hear anything else.

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that we have yet had spelt out to us in any convincing way the policy that the Opposition would follow in relation to fiscal or monetary policies. Until that happens the Government's policy is the only one that stands in front of the nation.

Mrs. Thatcher: If I may ask the Prime Minister a serious question, now that the truth behind the latest loan is steadily filtering through, does he intend within the next six months to take any steps to reduce the Budget deficit—action that the Bank for International Settlements says is imperative if our economy is properly to recover?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. Lady used the word "loan" through inadvertence. It is not a loan; it is a standby credit, which may be used wholly, in part, or not at all by the end of three months or six months. As regards what the right hon. Lady had to say about Government expenditure for 1977–78, as she will know from her previous experience, that is a matter that is reviewed by Governments through the public expenditure survey exercise. That exercise will be carried out by the Chancellor in an orderly way during the coming months, and our proposals for next year's expenditure will be placed before the House in due course.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is it the position that the Prime Minister has not excluded that possibility, and that he may take the view that in addition to pay restraint some movement on Budget restraint is also necessary?

The Prime Minister: I have never ruled that out, any more than the Chancellor has done. As my right hon. Friend

has said—I think he was the first to say it—it rather depends on the rate at which private investment scoops into the available pool of savings. We do not want to create unemployment at this moment by cutting public expenditure, and that would be the impact of it. However, as private investment and manufacturing investment take up the strain, clearly the Chancellor will need to review the position. That will be done in an orderly way during the months that lie ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION (GENERAL ASSEMBLY)

Mr Ioan Evans: asked the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will, as usual, take part in the general debate at the beginning of the UN General Assembly, which is scheduled to start on 21st September 1976.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting the United Nations at an an early date? Will he seek to speak to the Assembly and reiterate that the United Nations is the cornerstone of the Government's foreign policy and express wholeheartedly the Government's support for its objectives? Will he take the opportunity of expressing appreciation to the member states of the United Nations for the support that they have given to the Government's policy on Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider that, but it is not normal for Heads of Government to address the United Nations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be able to convey those sentiments, as I did last year. It is part of the foreign policy of the Labour Government and the Labour Party that the United Nations, with all its weaknesses, should be one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy.
As regards the future of Rhodesia, I was very happy that some members of the United Nations took up the statement that I made to the House on 22nd March, and particularly that the United States


Secretary of State did so, he having such influence in these matters.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that several thousand Cuban troops are still entrenched in Angola, and that according to recent reports both Cuban and Soviet personnel are exercising increasing control over day-to-day administration there? Will he take steps to have this matter raised in the United Nations Decolonisation Committee, as it appears to be a particularly relevant matter for that committee?

The Prime Minister: The Angolan Government, which is now a legitimate Government, would not accept the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, in the sense that they invited the Cubans to be there. Therefore, a propaganda exercise in the United Nations would not be likely to yield much benefit.
I think that the sooner Cuban troops are pulled out of Angola, the better. But with the withdrawal of Portuguese technicians from Angola, it is to be expected that the other technicians—the Cuban technicians—who are there are preferable to some whom the hon. Gentleman might like even less.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 APPLICATIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that I received notice at 1.30 p.m. this afternoon from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) of his wish to raise, under Standing Order No. 9, the question of the published import and balance of trade figures. The hon. Gentleman is unable to do so because the Standing Order clearly provides that:
A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour.
Therefore, I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way, under the rules of the House, whereby you can give the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not use the raising of a point of order to make a political point, which he was about to do.

GOVERNMENT MINISTERS

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It cannot have escaped your attention that during Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence Opposition Members on several occasions referred to Ministers going to important conferences. Is it in order for the Opposition to do that when, by their refusal to pair, they are in fact undermining Parliament and the ordinary commonsense operation of the Government's business through blind prejudice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one on either side of the House will try to get me involved in the present cold atmosphere.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, Proceedings on the Methodist Church Bill [Lords] and the London Transport Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at half-past Eight o'clock; that the Methodist Church Bill [Lords] and any Motion for an instruction relating to the Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for three hours after the Bill has been entered upon, whichever is the later; and that the London Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. Lipton: This is an extraordinary and unusual motion which, fortunately, is debatable, even if it is not capable of a rational explanation.
The motion provides that the proceedings on the Energy Bill [Lords] and on the baking tests (cereals) motion, instead of terminating at 7 o'clock, should terminate at 8.30. Presumably the effect will be that for four and a half hours or thereabouts the House will have an opportunity of debating the Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
The motion also provides that the House will spend up to three hours solving or dealing with some internal problem concerning the Methodist Church Bill [Lords]. That measure may be of


importance to Liberal Party Members, but I do not think that it is of sufficient magnitude to justify the House spending three hours on it.
After that, at 11.30 p.m., we are to go on to discuss the London Transport Bill ad infinitum. That means that the House may be sitting until 4 o'clock tomorrow morning, just as it did this morning. It seems an abuse of the procedures of the House to spring a motion like this upon us at the last minute. It shows a complete lack of proportion in assessing the value of the different items that we are called upon to consider this day.

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might assist my hon. Friend. The length of time for discussion of the Energy Bill [Lords] has been proposed in response to suggestions that were made when I announced the business on Thursday. The time for the Methodist Church Bill [Lords] follows the provisions laid down for private business put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We are following the arrangements which are normally followed in that respect.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is the business motion. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No".

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it. The "Ayes" have it.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have put the Question.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I mistaken in thinking that I heard a "No" from the other side of the House? Is a Division to take place or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman observed what I observed. I repeated "The 'Ayes' have it." If the House wishes a Division, the House can always have one. But it is an old custom that, if it is repeated often enough, there is co-operation. I thought that the "Ayes" had it.

Question agreed to.

ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF MERCENARIES (PROHIBITION)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make newspaper proprietors liable for prosecution in relation to the publication of advertisements for the recruitment of mercenaries for service outside the United Kingdom. 
Attempts are sometimes made to portray—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce his Ten-Minute Bill. I should be grateful for the courtesy of hon. Members leaving the House quietly.

Mr. Hughes: Attempts are sometimes made to portray the mercenary as a swashbuckling, adventurous and romantic figure. That is a gross distortion of the true nature of mercenaries. They are nothing more than hired killers who murder to order and for no other purpose than commercial gain.
A murderer in this country cannot plead as a defence that he was acting solely in the course of his employment. To do so in some far-flung part of the world does not diminish the offence, nor should it distract from the evil that is done.
I wish to end mercenary recruitment in this country wherever in the world the service is intended. I doubt whether anyone in this House is prepared to encourage the trade in mercenaries, but I suspect that some in this House would seek to excuse inaction by saying that control is too difficult. One of the important ways of prevention is to cut off the flow of information and to stop advertising by recruitment agencies.
Those who seek to further the mercenaries' cause are as bad as the mercenaries themselves. Indeed, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, which makes it illegal to enlist in the service of a foreign Power at war with a friendly State, recognises that. Section 12 provides:
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.

My Bill would update the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 in its definition of the prinicipal offence and make it clear that advertising satisfies the intention of Section 12.
Incidentally, before Second Reading there must be an examination of the rôle of the Press regarding the recruitment of mercenaries in Angola. It has been said that certain reporters, as a result of stories appearing in the Press, were giving telephone numbers to those who inquired for the purpose of recruitment.
I am particularly concerned about the recruitment of mercenaries for the Rhodesian Army, advertisements having appeared widely in the British Press—notably in the News of the World and the Sunday People. It is a matter of urgency to close a loophole in the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968. Under Article 14 of that Order, it is an offence to publish or to be party to the publication of any advertisement which would solicit or encourage the taking up of employment or residence in Rhodesia.
There is, of course, a saving provision that a person is not guilty if he can prove that he could not have known or could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the advertisement or notice was of that character. In the particular case of a company called Southern Placement Services, Johannesburg, it was easily discovered that this was recruitment for employment in Rhodesia. Indeed, this was exposed in a Tribune publication on 12th December 1975. The fact that the employment was for mercenaries compounds the offence.
I was quite astonished when the Director of Public Prosecutions recently decided that there was no one within jurisdiction against whom he could proceed although an offence had clearly been committed. My Bill, therefore, will change the onus of proof from the negative to the positive. That is to say, a defendant would have to show that he had taken positive steps to ascertain that an offence was not being committed.
In the case of Rhodesia, where we have an illegal régime which is carrying out illegal trials and illegal hangings, the Press has a special rôle to play. We


should not forget that Rhodesia is in rebellion against the Crown. The Press of this country rightly defends the freedoms that we hold dear, and I believe that it has a moral as well as a legal responsibility to do nothing to support a régime which rules by force and which denies freedom to the majority of its population.
The trade of mercenary is obscene. It reduces man to below the level of beasts, because animals do not kill without purpose and without reason, as the mercenary does. We in this House have a responsibility to end this despicable trade. I commend the Bill to the House.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I wish to oppose the motion on three grounds—technically, politically and morally.
First, on the technical level, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to wait until the Diplock Commission has reported on this matter, as requested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the former Prime Minister. Second, on the technical level, I note that the hon. Gentleman is requiring the British Press to act as his policeman in stopping advertisements for mercenaries, but his Bill will in no way make it unlawful for British citizens to hire out to fight abroad. The Bill will not affect that at all, yet the hon. Gentleman seeks to require of the British Press that it should not advertise activities which, even if his Bill were to be passed, will remain perfectly legitimate under the law of this country.
I believe that this technical defect alone would lead the Government to advise the hon. Gentleman that this is a Bill which ought not to pass.
Secondly, I believe that the hon. Gentleman totally misconceives the not dishonourable rôle of the mercenary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] A mercenary is someone who follows the not ignoble profession of arms and sells his services for pay. He is by definition a volunteer, a volunteer who accepts a high reward but who frequently quite sincerely believes in the cause he is serving.
There is a long and honourable tradition of mercenary soldiers serving the cause of freedom and democracy. Among

the best-known mercenaries are those Swiss who, over the centuries, have served as what the hon. Gentleman might describe as the "killer elite" of the Vatican's Papal Guard. More recently, our own country has made good use of the most effective and gallant mercenary soldiers the world has ever seen—the Brigade of Gurkhas. The Gurkhas have won endless awards for gallantry while serving this country for pay, and from time to time they are recruited by way of advertisements in Nepal, which at present are the responsibility of the Labour Secretary of State for Defence, who, I am glad to say, has been persuaded to keep the mercenary Gurkha Brigade.

Mr. Martin Flannery: A cross we have to bear.

Mr. Griffiths: Apart from the mercenaries that Britain engages to help to preserve our freedom, tens of thousands of young British soldiers, out of a love of adventure as well as for pay, have regularly hired themselves out as mercenaries abroad. Some of our fathers fought for pay on behalf of Hailie Selassie against Mussolini's Fascists. Others fought, for pay, against the Red Army in Siberia. Hundreds of members of the Labour Party fought, to their credit, in the Spanish Civil War. I recall Mr. Jack Jones boasting about how he and many others of the International Brigade went off to kill Spanish Falangists. Of course, they were volunteers and they believed in their cause, but I have no doubt that Mr. Jones not only expected but got the going rate for the job at the time.
My third objection is to the double standards contained in the hon. Gentleman's proposals, paricularly his description, on the BBC this morning, of the mercenaries as "hired killers".[An HON. MEMBER: "They are."] He made the distinction between "hired killers" and what he described as "freedom fighters" who—in the mythology of the Left—are supposed to kill only from conviction.
But what is the reality? All professional soldiers are hired, in the ultimate, to kill and to risk being killed. That goes for the paid Soviet mercenaries who are now actively assisting the paid professional gunmen who daily murder and


mutilate fellow Africans as well as white settlers on the borders of Rhodesia. It goes, too, for the paid professional killers among the Palestine Liberation Organisation and, indeed, some of their opponents, in the blood-spattered city of Beirut.
It applies, in my judgment, to the mercenary army of Cubans who were hired by the Soviet Union to wage war which caused the deaths of infinitely more Africans than any European mercenaries may have injured in Angola. It could be applied with equal force to scores of so-called liberation movements, where the poor bloody infantry may well be provided by the peasants of Vietnam, Cambodia, Biafra or many another country but where the sophisticated staff, the bazookamen, the tactical commanders and those who handle the missiles are paid professional mercenaries from the Soviet Union and China.

Mr. Flannary: What about the South Africans?

Mr. Griffiths: The point about professional mercenaries, over the whole world, is that one should judge them more by the cause they serve than by their motivation in serving it.
I want to conclude by putting to the hon. Gentleman two questions. I hope that if he does not do so here he will answer them elsewhere. The first is this. Let us suppose that a group of young Socialists, tiring of unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency, to follow his advice and the advice of many of his hon. Friends and band together to go to Chile to fight against what they have been told is an illegal Fascist régime. Would the hon. Gentleman take the view that they were hired professional killers? Would he seek to prevent them undertaking that activity?

Secondly, in respect of the Budapest revolution—where I, among others, was taken prisoner by the Russian Army—let us suppose that a number of young men in this country, responding to the appeal of the oppressed Hungarian people, had banded together and gone to Budapest to seek to resist the Red Army's tanks. Would the hon. Gentleman have regarded their activities as disgraceful or their persons—as he put it—as lower than beasts?

The hon. Gentleman's proposals are founded on double standards. His proposal, like so many others that hon. Members have made, ought to be rejected by the House—for a particular reason. By choosing this day of all days to mount his attack on mercenaries, I believe that the hon. Gentleman may seriously have prejudiced the chances of the dozen or so of our fellow citizens—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]—who are now on trial for their lives in Angola.

The hon. Member may well have imagined that by hanging this motion on to the headlines he would gain additional publicity, as no doubt he will. But I wonder what effect this motion will have on the Angola show trial if by its vote today the House of Commons adds its voice to condemning, in advance and not on the evidence, all these young men who could be facing the death penalty in a foreign land.

I believe that the House should treat this motion with the contempt it deserves and throw it out.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) :—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 89.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[3.51 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Clemitson, Ivor


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bates, Alf
Campbell, Ian
Crawford, Douglas


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Canavan, Dennis
Crawshaw, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)




Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sillars, James


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Litterick, Tom
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacCormick, Iain
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stoddart, David


Ewing Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Marks, Kenneth
Thompson, George


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moonman, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Golding, John
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkinson, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John
Weetch, Ken


Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Andrew


Harper, Joseph
Park, George
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitehead, Phillip


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, George
Woodall, Alec


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, Geoffrey



Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Kelley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. George Rodgers.


Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Banks, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Beith, A. J.
Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pardoe, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brotherton, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Nigel
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cope, John
Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
McCrindle, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eyre, Reginald

Ross, William (Londonderry)


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freud, Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stainton, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)







Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Hughes, Mrs. Judith Hart, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Ioan Evans, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Bob Cryer, and Mr. Stanley Newens.

ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF MERCENARIES (PROHIBITION) BILL

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to make newspaper proprietors liable for prosecution in relation to the publication of advertisements for the recruitment of mercenaries for service outside the United Kingdom: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16th July and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

Orders of the Day — ENERGY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, as Members will realise, was taken first in another place because of the pressure of business here at the time of introduction. It has been changed in a number of ways. In some cases I shall be able to commend these changes to the House. In others I shall later explain why the changes are unacceptable to the Government and that we aim to remedy such defects during the passage of the Bill through this House.
I should like to explain first in general terms the aims of the Bill and then refer briefly to each of the main clauses to provide the House with a little more detail of key provisions. The Bill will supersede the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 and is required to give the Government permanent powers to meet United Kingdom obligations under the Agreement on an International Energy Programme and obligations as a member of the European Communities, and to develop the Government's policies for the conservation of energy.
Therefore, this is an important Bill from both a domestic as well as an international point of view. However if hon. Members look closely at the Bill they will see that in many important respects, notably Clauses 1, 2 and 4, it re-enacts key provisions of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 giving the Government powers to act in an energy emergency. As concerns the actual powers to be available for such crises, therefore, the Bill touches no new ground. I shall deal later with the "triggering" provisions in Clause 3 which differentiate between a "domestic" and an "international" crisis.
We touch new territory in the provisions affording power to conserve energy—the basic power affecting use of energy is contained in Clause 3(3)—and other more specific conservation measures

in Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive. Most of the other provisions arise, as does Clause 11 on the fuelling of new and converted power stations, from our international obligations to the International Energy Agency or the EEC.
To deal first with the general background to our IEA obligations, the Agreement on an International Energy Programme entered into force on 19th January 1976 for States, including ours, which have notified consent to be bound by its terms. Under the agreement we are required to have available powers which will enable us to impose restrictions on the supply and use of energy in an emergency, to meet our obligations to hold a minimum level of oil stocks and to provide information to the International Energy Agency. Some of these obligations can be met under the 1973 Act, but that Act requires annual parliamentary approval for renewal and is therefore not a satisfactory basis for the fulfilment of international obligations.
For that purpose, the requisite powers must be permanently available, and seen to be so by other signatories to the international agreement. Furthermore, the 1973 Act was designed to meet an emergency, not to meet the requirements of a long-term programme of international co-operation. It does not, for example, provide wide enough powers in respect of information, which is an important element of the International Energy Programme.
In order to prepare for an oil emergency, we need to have permanently available powers which will enable the United Kingdom to meet its obligations as a participant in the International Energy Programme's oil-sharing scheme. Among other things, this requires the United Kingdom to be able to reduce oil demand by the amounts specified in the IEP agreement and to direct United Kingdom oil companies to reallocate supplies amongst themselves and, if necessary, to supply companies in other countries. We have decided, therefore, that the crisis management powers contained in the 1973 Act should be permanently available, but we recognise that they should be exercisable only for IEP purposes at time when the IEP agreement requires them. The IEP agreement defines these circumstances, and hon. Members will note the Government's intention that the extensive powers


to control production, acquisition, supply or use by order or direction should be used only after Her Majesty has, by Order in Council, activated them as a result of an oil emergency being declared by the members of the International Energy Agency.
In another place it was suggested that the original wording of Clause 3(1) in this respect might not make this declared intention crystal clear, and the clause now contains in subsection (1)(a) a compromise formula which in the Government's view puts the situation beyond any doubt.
The IEP agreement also requires us, as part of its provision for cushioning the effect of an oil shortage, to hold a minimum level of oil stocks. We are therefore seeking powers in the Bill which will enable us to meet similar EEC obligations to hold 90 days' stocks of oil.
We have also to bear in mind the continuing need to have available contingency measures for controlling the production. acquisition, use and supply of energy, and for regulating oil prices, during a domestic energy emergency. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would be prudent to retain powers similar to those in the 1973 Act for domestic crisis management, subject, of course, as hon. Members will see from Clause 3, to the same degree of parliamentary control as provided in that Act. Here again the wording of the provision in subsection (1)(b) about "domestic" emergencies has been clarified after exchanges in another place.
To turn to the energy conservation aims of the Bill, the Government's objective following the 1973 oil crisis and the ensuing sharp increases in energy prices has been to encourage greater efficiency in energy use and stimulate consumers to help themselves by saving energy. Much of our effort has thus been by exhortation and example, by information and advice; but in some areas voluntary restraint is insufficient and reinforcement through the statute book is appropriate. Certain measures are already in force under the 1973 Act affecting heating levels, speed limits and advertising lighting. These will be kept under review, but the present intention is that they will be continued under the Bill.
Powers are, however, needed to permit us to introduce new measures as and when the Government consider them to be necessary in support of the encouraging efforts being made to save energy throughout the economy. We are therefore proposing that the power to control the use of energy and the power to alter statutory provisions relating to the use of energy substances, similar to those in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, will be permanently available; but except in emergency the power to control the use of energy will be exercisable only for energy conservation purposes, only after consultation with those affected and with suitable advisory bodies, and only by Order, which will be subject to negative resolution procedure and thus to the control of Parliament.
The Government have also decided to include a new power to subject fuel consumption in cars to a standard test, the results of which will be published, thus enabling car-buyers to make a more reliable comparison of a car's fuel consumption when contemplating buying a car. Again, I shall say more of that provision later, since recent discussions have taken place with the industry following exchanges in another place on some aspects of this clause.
We are replacing Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 by Clause 8 of the Bill, which would thus establish the ongoing régime over the supply and use of natural gas from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. Much of the clause is designed to remove technical anomalies in the present situation, especially in the treatment of gas distilled from North Sea crude.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does the Minister propose to keep Clause 8(2)?

Dr. Mabon: May I come to that later? I am giving the good news first, but I shall come to the other news. I am sorry that I have to rush this, but I am trying to cover as many aspects as I can. I am only sorry that, even with the extension of time, there will not be an adequate day's debate on the Bill.
Although this effort has resulted in some unusually technical language, it has been welcomed by the industries concerned and should facilitate the rational


development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
The clause also seeks to clarify the Government's control over liquefaction, which was obscure in the Continental Shelf Act; we shall hope at a later stage to correct the unsatisfactory way in which that control is at present expressed. We shall also seek to amend the clause in order to give the Secretary of State discretion not to consent to the supply and use of gas for industrial non-fuel purposes.
Clause 9 brings under control the flaring of natural gas or its release unignited into the atmosphere. In another place, certain forms of flaring were exempted from this proposed control. We may need to examine at a later stage whether these exemptions are well based, taking into account the requirement of conservation as well as the practicalities of industry. Given our limited ability to predict technical advance, it may be preferable to deal with these exemptions by Order.
The Bill also contains provisions which will enable the United Kingdom, as a member of the European Communities, to implement Council directives and enforce EEC regulations in the energy field. One important directive is 73/238, which requires us to have powers for crisis management in an energy emergency when declared by the European Communities. Other directives implemented under the Bill are 68/414, as amended, which requires us to hold a minimum level of reserves of oil and to which I referred earlier; 75 /339, which covers the holding of minimum stocks of fossil fuels at power stations; and 75/404 and 75/405, which relate to the fuelling of power stations. Of these, the directives concerning crisis management and oil stocks are currently implemented under the 1973 Act. The Bill will also allow us to implement any future arrangements in the EEC for meeting energy crises.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend give a figure for the ratio between the coal stocks at power stations which are required by EEC directive to be held and the present average stocks at power stations?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will no doubt get those figures.

I do not have them in my head, but no doubt he will incorporate them in his speech. I agree that that is an important point.
The Government propose to move an amendment in Committee to reinstate in the Bill the power to control the price of oil products on a permanent basis. This power is, of course, available under the Bill—Clause 1(2), triggered by Clause 3(2) —for energy emergency purposes. The power to control the price of crude oil will be limited to energy emergencies. At present the powers which exist in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 are being used only to control the price of paraffin, which is so important to many pensioners and other low-income users, but they were also used in December 1973 by the previous Administration, who fixed maximum retail prices for petrol and derv to protect the consumer from profiteering during a shortage.

Mr. Peter Rost: Can the Minister explain what we could not discover from the proceedings in another place—the reason why price control for oil is required for energy conservation and its relevance to a policy for more rational use of energy? I should have thought that it had the opposite effect.

Dr. Mabon: What I wanted to do now was give notice of the Government's intentions in Committee, which is a perfectly honourable procedure. I do not want to argue the case now. I would rather do so in Committee. We shall then see whether I can convince hon. Members that there is sense in that provision and that the hon. Member's argument is not as profound as he thinks. But I give notice that we intend to have this debate in Committee, which I am sure will be a very agreeable occasion.
The Government wish to make this provision not only in the interests of the consumers, who may of course be private, commercial or industrial, but also as an important reserve power for possible use in the development of the nation's long-term energy policies. Most European countries and the United States of America already have special powers to control oil prices. The Government intend to table an appropriate amendment to the Bill in Committee.
Before looking at the key provisions of the Bill, it might help the House if I underline the way in which the powers of Clauses 1 and 2 would be triggered and operated. Clauses 1 and 2, which are a rehearsal of the 1973 Act, set out what appear to be very sweeping powers, but they are, of course, qualified as to the extent of their availability by Clause 3, which defines an "international" crisis and a "domestic" emergency and includes the general permanent power to control the use of energy for conservation purposes. In the case of an international oil emergency, we are proposing that the full emergency powers are to be activated by Order in Council when it is decided by the members of the International Energy Agency or of the EEC that an emergency exists. Such an Order in Council would not be subject to parliamentary procedure.
Secondly, for a domestic emergency we propose that the powers shall similarly be activated by Order in Council but that such an Order in Council shall be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Thirdly, for energy conservation we are seeking the power to control only the use of energy, not its supply. We have undertaken to consult before making any energy conservation Order. Such orders are subject to negative resolution procedure. Thus, the United Kingdom will be able to meet its international obligations while retaining parliamentary control over the activation of the contingency powers for a domestic emergency and over measures taken for energy conservation purposes.
I shall say nothing more about Clauses 1 and 2 but will turn now to Clause 3, on which there will probably be some debate. It covers the circumstances in which the full powers contained in Clauses 1 and 2 may be exercised. If these powers are required to meet the United Kingdom's international obligations in respect of energy emergencies, either as a member of the EEC or as a party to the Agreement on an International Energy Programme, they can be activated by the Orders that I have described.
If hon. Members will permit me, I shall say nothing at this stage about Clause 4. Clause 5 prevents normal statutory controls from unnecessarily hindering national objectives in times of

emergency. In the case of an oil emergency, we shall be particularly dependent on the oil industry acting collectively to implement the Government's directions. Such joint action might infringe restrictive trade practices legislation. I believe that the then Prime Minister found this a particularly acute difficulty in 1973. The clause therefore provides partial exemption for certain restrictive agreements made by the oil industry, only during an energy crisis.
Unless hon. Members wish me to do so, I shall not say anything about Clause 6, which I think is quite clear. Clause 7 implements the United Kingdom's obligations under EEC Council Directive 75/339 to which I have referred already.
Clause 8 I have touched on already. As I said earlier, it supersedes Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. That section did not cover the possibility of producing natural gas in association with crude or of gas-gathering pipelines not owned by the licensees or of an industrial company purchasing the gas offshore. With the help and advice of the oil industry, the Government have introduced a number of detailed technical provisions which will facilitate the development of our offshore oil and gas resources. In particular, this clause seeks to establish a rational régime for gas derived from off-shore crude and thus removes a disincentive to refining British crude in British refineries.

Mr. Skeet: Clause 8 (2) deals with mandatory consent. It is contingent on the old procedure in Section 9 of the 1964 Act. I asked the Minister whether he would be leaving that in, and I assume that he will accept discretion and leave it where it is.

Dr. Mabon: We shall have to debate that in Committee, but our inclination is to delete it. We shall argue this in Committee because other subsections flow from it which obviously we shall have to take into account.
My second point in defending the Government's case on Clause 8 is that the Continental Shelf Act is obscure in its treatment of liquefaction of gas. The clause seeks to establish that it is subject to control, though in our view it still needs some amendments. Thirdly, it is our wish to amend the clause to give


the Secretary of State discretion in consenting to the supply and use of gas for non-fuel purposes.
Clause 9 is primarily about flaring, but it also brings in the releasing of unignited gas into the atmosphere. It would be theoretically desirable to eliminate both practices, whether on environmental grounds or for energy conservation. But we have to admit that in some circumstances flaring is an industrial necessity. For that reason we shall have to give consideration to exemptions under Clause 9.
Clause 10 gives permanent effect to the relief of the British Gas Corporation from its obligation under the Gas Act 1972 to meet demands for new or additional supplies of gas if these would involve the supply of more than 25,000 therms a year to the premises in question. This relief has been given for the last two years by a special authority granted under the 1973 Act, and in our view it needs to be maintained to ensure that demand does not outstrip available supplies through a major unregulated growth of non-domestic use.
Clause 11 enables United Kingdom obligations under EEC Council Directives 75/404 and 75/405 to be implemented. I do not think that I should develop comments on that clause any further.
Clause 12, about which we may have difficulty, provides that the Secretary of State may make Orders requiring the fuel consumption of sample models of passenger cars to be determined by officially approved tests and the results to be recorded and brought to the notice of the Public. I know that we shall have to go into this matter more fully in Committee. Nevertheless, Clause 12 is regarded as being very useful.
Clause 13 raises the upper limit of the contributions payable under Section 2 of the Electricity Act 1972 from £25 million to £45 million, mainly to take account of inflation. Section 2 of the 1972 Act enabled the then Government to contribute to the costs incurred by the electricity boards in carrying out projects which they had agreed to advance in order to promote employment. The largest of these was the Ince B Power station in Cheshire.
Clause 14 is a general clause relating to the use of Orders and directions under the Bill. Clause 15, with the important Schedule 2, provides powers to obtain from undertakings information relating both to the substances mentioned in Clause 1 and electricity and to the undertakings themselves. I remind the House that the IEP Agreement requires us to furnish information on the structure and organisation of oil companies. The information may, however, be disclosed only in specified cases such as to the International Energy Agency, EEC institutions and other United Kingdom Government Departments for the exercise of their functions.
Schedule 2 includes powers to call for documents and, in certain circumstances and subject to certain safeguards, to enter non-domestic premises. Clause 15 also creates appropriate offences for non-compliance with provisions made by or under the Bill and with the EEC Council Regulations listed in Schedule 3, and for making false statements or possessing false documents. Clause 16 provides penalties for these offences.
The remaining clauses, Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, deal with miscellaneous provisions, and general matters and cover financial provisions, interpretation, repeals and savings, citation and extension to Northern Ireland, and so on.
I hope that the House will agree that I have tried to explain the Bill, albeit at a mad gallop but nevertheless in the hope that right hon. and hon. Members will realise that this is an important measure upon which we shall have further debates in Committee and one which I hope everyone will agree is a useful Bill which should be put on the statute book this Session. In our view, the Bill is essential for the wide-ranging objectives which I have described. The Government attach the greatest importance to meeting our international obligations. We recognise that the 1973 Act is unsuitable for meeting those long-term obligations and is no longer appropriate. It has been overtaken by more recent events and has the defect of having to be renewed annually.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is tailor-made for its various purposes. It is so constructed that its emergency


powers are available only when necessary and with appropriate parliamentary sanctions, as I have explained. It is an important part of the development of the Government's long-term energy policies. In my view no Government, of whatever party, can afford to be without available measures to deal with energy crises, whether internal or external, or with the long-term need to ensure that our energy resources are used in the most sensible ways so as to avoid waste or inefficient use. Some executives in industry may argue that they alone know best. This it not so. The Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for making the crucial decisions in the national interest after due and proper consultation with the industry as a whole where that is appropriate.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I have a great affection for the House of Commons, but there is something slightly bizarre that, at 4 o'clock in the morning, this Chamber could be practically in turmoil on the Blaenau-Gwent Order, whereas at half-past 4 in the afternoon we are reduced to the hardy band of faithful who take an interest in energy topics when we are discussing a very significant Bill.
I was touched by the hon. and ever-optimistic Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Palmer) when, on 20th May, he asked the Leader of the House:
Will my right hon. Friend say when time can be provided to debate the important subject of energy conservation, particularly in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which after a period of ten months, the Government have made no reply?" —[Official Report, 20th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1717.]
I think that the whole House will have a lively sympathy with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West on this account. Perhaps he was hoping that the commitment in the Queen's Speech would enable his expectations to be fulfilled, because, of course, the Queen's Speech said that legislation would be introduced to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement on an International Energy Programme, to control energy supplies during any shortages, and to implement energy conservation policies.
There has been a fairly general expectation—at least outside this House

—that at some point there would be the occasion when Parliament would either generally debate or else have the opportunity to fashion some kind of energy conservation legislation. Clearly, if that occasion is to arise, it is not to arise today.
In some senses, the Bill before us is an Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Minister of State, in his engaging and charming manner, took us through it clause by clause, and indicated that the Government appreciated the very constructive work that had been done in another place. I noted that he referred to the Bill as being "tailor-made". The bespoke practitioners up the road have clearly played their part in the fitting, and I hope, as the Minister does, that the Committee stage will be constructive and will build upon the work already done.
I should like to dwell on three themes that run through this legislation. This is perhaps an opportunity for the House to consider them in the wider context. If we do not do it now, we shall have no other opportunity.
The three themes are, first, the relations between OPEC and the consuming countries, which are central to the whole institution of the International Energy Agency; secondly, the factors that will aid conservation and the development of energy sources; and, thirdly, the political relationship between the Department of Energy and the oil and petrochemical companies. It was in a sense to that relationship that the right hon. Gentleman turned in his concluding remarks.
I fully realise that the first part of the Bill and, in a sense, Clauses 1 to 7 and some other provisions derive from an anxiety and obligation to deal with emergency situations and the maintenance of fuel reserves. A good deal of this is a consequence of our membership of the International Energy Agency.
I regret that the Bill was not drafted, and is not susceptible of amendment, in such a way as to make a clearer distinction between the objectives of emergency control and the more general issue of conservation. Their coexistence in the early clauses could give rise to misunderstanding and anxiety. If the Committee stage can help allay those fears, it will


be one of the constructive rôles of the Committee. I am glad to see that I have the assent of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis).
I turn to the question whether we are ever likely to find ourselves having to operate these clauses under the trigger mechanism of the International Energy Agency. The House should take this opportunity at least to make a passing comment upon the agency's operation and how it can best proceed to our national advantage. It seems to me that there is, implicit in the juxtaposition— "confrontation" is not a word I would choose—of the OPEC countries and the agency, the danger that there would develop countervailing cartels. I very much hope that the purpose of the agency will be to encourage OPEC to operate in a market situation rather than a cartel situation.
There will be interest in the recent developments in OPEC. The movement in prices has not been inexorably upward over the past few months. The recovery in industrial activity in the Western World has not set off the automatic response by OPEC producers of increasing their prices substantially. The latest indications are that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait have cut or shaded the price of their heavy crudes, whereas, in a different situation and with different qualities of fuel, Libya and Venezuela have marginally increased their prices.
I make no prophecy about the future behaviour of OPEC. I shall concede the position of prophet to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), who has been fairly brave in expecting that OPEC would not prove quite as monolithic as at one time fashion had supposed. But it would be extremely unwise of any hon. Member to make prognostications on the future behaviour of OPEC. However, we are certainly wise also to monitor the OPEC world as it is and not as it was so confidently forecast by a number of people inside and outside the House 12 months ago.
Obviously, in Committee there will be great anxiety to secure for Parliament a monitoring of a situation in which there will be considerable governmental and inter-governmental controls over the disposition of oil, in a situation in which France is a member of the European

Community but not a member of the International Energy Agency.
In that context, although I appreciate that there are other reasons, the Minister of State says that there is a virtue in the Orders not being annually renewable. Parliament always wants to be a little sceptical before becoming convinced that something that has been annually renewable should cease so to be.
I turn to my second theme, of conservation. This will be an area in which there will be some controversy. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has already observed that the existence of price control as proposed in Clause 3(3) does not sit easily with a general policy of conservation. It is not just my economic prejudices; I believe that it is a general, common-sense observation that price has proved to be a great conserver. If I wanted to pray anything in aid, I should take the evidence of Sir Arthur Hawkins when he gave a talk to the North Western Fuel Luncheon Club in Manchester on 4th March this year. He said:
The fuel taps have been turned down, and turned down with a vengeance, because of a combination of factors: reduced industrial activity; consumer reaction to high energy costs; and the 'Save It' campaign.
He added—and I wish to underline this:
Of these factors, I personally believe that the swingeing increases in energy prices have been the main cause of the downturn.
The Minister of State is right to say that there are other administrative buttresses to a policy of energy conservation. He referred to Community and national obligations in respect of heating levels and speed limits. Doubtless it was under that general philosophy that there was incorporated in the Bill Clause 12, about the fuel consumption records of motor vehicles. I suspect that it is one of those clauses that has generated a good deal of correspondence and a natural anxiety on the part of the trade interests concerned. Once again, it is an appropriate subject for Committee. That is what Committee stages are all about—to enable a meeting of minds with the world outside, which I suspect is sometimes a shade more real than the world at the Department of Energy, even as refined and perfected by the work of their Lordships. There is always the danger that the whole issue of conservation could become the


Trojan Horse for a more generalised political interference in the trade and commerce of the country.
That takes me to my third theme, which is the political relationship between the Department of Energy and the fuel industries generally, and the fear that the Secretary of State will use his powers of control to extend ambitions for providing enhanced political authority.
The Secretary of State could not be with us, and I make no objection to that. We are a cheerful, happy family at least for five minutes longer—and we are pleased to see the Secretary of State's ex-Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Chamber. There has been a reconcilation, and one has to clearly understand the nuances of relationships within the Labour Party to know why the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and now the Parliamentary Private Secretary all sit together in perfect amicability.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: That is correct.

Mr. Biffen: I am glad that the Minister of State has confirmed that, because I wondered whether he had been popped in to keep an eye on the Secretary of State and create that bland exterior that Government Departments like to have when members of the business community become over-emotional about prominent politicians. I accept that the situation is not as facile or as simple as that.
The Secretary of State is a great communicator and he has placed on record the most interesting remarks and, many people believe, rather daunting suggestions, arguments and assertions. I have in mind that which he uttered during the debate on the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill which, as the Minister of State said, is being largely repeated in the current legislation. In welcoming the powers that the Bill was conferring the Secretary of State said:
It will give us the power to control all the oil companies, all the multi-nationals, to fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use, including the chemical industry, will be brought within the control of the Government of the day."—[Official Report, 26th November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 141.]

At that time I sat where the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) now sits, and listened to a fine parliamentary performance. The trouble is that the Secretary of State has to some extent become a prisoner of his past rhetoric, because that was the ambition that he had then, and that ambition returns to haunt him. The desire to control chemical feedstock gas, particularly in Clause 8(2), causes concern in the petro-chemical industry that the Secretary of State may have undisclosed but wider ambitions.
We must recognise that the House of Lords has done a valuable task in constructing a more appropriate form for the legislation. In a sense it has been trying to rescue the Secretary of State from the gaol of his former rhetoric. It has been trying to spring him. On the principle of "once a patrician, always a patrician" the House of Lords has done its best to help out, even though it is for a prodigal.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: A fugitive.

Mr. Biffen: I am trying to be more generous to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister of State will not go around making such comments about the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate to the amicable way in which the Department of Energy's political leadership is now constituted.
However bland and reasonably good-natured we are about the Bill, there can be no doubt that it incorporates substantial powers, which will be exercised by the Executive without detailed recourse to Parliament. We have to be realistic about the matter. Perhaps it is the way of the modern world and perhaps it is the only way. I shall listen to that argument, but let us not deny that substantial powers exist in the Bill and that its implementation will not be subject to constant and renewed parliamentary scrutiny. We must recognise that in the event of a crisis, or the need for conservation, there will be tremendous authority for the Government to direct the fuel industries. Many people fear that such direction could stultify the private sector and inhibit the risk capital that is essential if we are to exploit further fuel resources.
At Question Time yesterday the Secretary of State, who is good at demonology, feared that there would be a reappearance of Adam Smith as the guide of the nation's energy policy. I was somewhat puzzled by that, until I recalled a particular perceptive and thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). His speech was not unique, as the Minister of State suggested; it was characteristic. At the Oslo Energy Conference on 4th May the right hon. Gentleman said:
If the market were completely to disappear it would be impossible to carry on the nationalised sector in its present form. We are very near the situation where the market may collapse. I do not see, therefore, why oil companies which genuinely believe in a market should not say so loud, clearly and often … I believe that the question as to whether Britain ought to continue as a free and free enterprise country or is to slide over into total socialism is going to be a major question of politics for the next two or three years. In this the oil companies have a vital rôle to play.
The right hon. Gentleman's words were pertinent, and the anxieties expressed about the legislation from some of the interests that are affected reflect his fears.
We shall not resist attempts to see the Bill reach the statute book, but we are determined that it should go on to the statute book in a form that is most appropriate. Above all, we are concerned that it shall not be just one further piece of legislation to prepare for the harassment of capital, price and profitability.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The Bill comes from the House of Lords at a time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is unable to be with us today, is almost on the eve of his comprehensive energy conference of all the talents and interests to be held at Church House next week. I hope to attend that conference and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his enterprise in arranging it.
But after all present at the conference have had their say in innumerable short speeches, which will not be much longer than four or five minutes—probably working down to three minutes towards the end of the day—a policy will not be produced. No one could seriously have supposed that it could be.
That kind of conference is valuable psychologically. It helps to make all parts of the energy industry feel as one. But in the end nothing can absolve the Government from adopting an energy policy in those spheres where the State, answerable to Parliament, either has an existing statutory responsibility or should have a new statutory responsibility if present powers are inadequate or out of date.
That is the principal fault of the Bill, which has come to us somewhat mutilated from the House of Lords. The Bill does not attempt to set out any comprehensive energy policy for the United Kingdom, either nationally or internationally, in spite of its Title. I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), that a more accurate title would perhaps be the Energy (General Powers) Bill.
The Bill probably started off in the Department as a simple measure to make permanent the powers in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973—a Conservative measure. Then came in, I suspect, the necessary EEC and International Energy Agency adjustments. Later, before it reached the other place, it was found convenient to insert extra matter. That is a trick of Departments when they are bringing forward scrappy Bills of this kind.
For example, Clause 12 provides for the testing of cars to find the petrol consumption, and for the figure to be published. Clause 13 raises the limit of the contributions payable under the Electricity Act 1972—another Conservative measure—to compensate electricity authorities for losses incurred at that time in bringing forward power projects. I shall return to these clauses later, but this patchwork approach does not give us the Energy Bill or the energy policy that the times demand.
Bitter experience has taught us that we cannot successfully look too far ahead in energy matters. The 1967 White Paper on fuel published in the days when Sir Richard Marsh was Minister, is a glaring example of how difficult it is to look far in to the future. Nevertheless, from time to time decisions become pressing, and the Government should not delay too long in making those decisions. If those decisions require further statutory powers, it is proper for the Government


to explain to Parliament why they should have them.
Among the pressing energy problems facing the country on which the Government must make decisions are first, the price of natural gas. There is much argument whether is is realistically priced. Secondly, there is the decision about the construction of a commercial fast breeder reactor. Sir John Hill, from Dounreay, almost begged the Select Committee on Science and Technology to bring influence to bear on the Government to make a decision fairly soon. We have had an undertaking—the evidence was taken in public this morning—from important officials of the Department, including Dr. Walter Marshall, that it is likely that a decision will be made in the autumn. Why do we have to wait for the leaves to fall before we can have a decision?
The third area in which it is important that we should have some advance in Government action is in energy conservation, which the hon. Member for Oswestry mentioned. The Select Committee on Science and Technology has a right to complain, as I have complained, that it is 12 months since the Committee produced its report. The Committee, consisting of hon. Members from both sides of the House, put in about 18 months of solid work. The report contains 42 recommendations for energy conservation. A year has passed, yet there is no sign of the White Paper that the Select Committee has a right to expect.

Mr. Skeet: Did not the Select Committee, in recommendation No. 7, recommend an Energy Conservation Bill? There is still no sign of it, although a year has elapsed.

Mr. Palmer: I said that the Committee had made 42 recommendations, some of which involve Departments other than the Department of Energy. Nevertheless, it would be helpful and consoling if we could now have an explanation for such delay.
To take the matters I have just listed in more detail, it is wrong to allow natural gas, a high-grade premium fuel, to be sold off below cost. In energy matters it is difficult to decide what is the true cost. We cannot relate it entirely to market forces. That does not work. On the other hand, an

over-planned price that does not take into account consumer needs does not work either. It is a question of trying to find the middle course, if we can.
The proof that natural gas is being sold off below cost is given by Clause 10; the Gas Corporation cannot supply the total consumer demand. The corporation is to be exempted permanently by the Bill from its normal statutory obligation to supply all consumers on the basis of a fair field and no favour, which is common form in energy nationalisation Bills.
It is not unknown to the House that I have close connections with the electricity supply industry. Electricity boards would also welcome, from time to time, an escape from their statutory obligation to supply the uneconomic consumer. That the Gas Corporation is to get that exemption indicates that the price mechanism is not working properly. It means that the country is consuming high-grade premium fuel too quickly and probably too wastefully.
The gas authorities are unable to meet the demand, whereas the electricity supply industry has an excess of capacity. There is a margin of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. between maximum electrical demand and the capacity now available to supply it. All that spare capital investment is costing money. High interest is being paid upon it. Also the electricity supply industry is the biggest consumer of coal in the United Kingdom. Therefore by under-using electrical resources, and consuming natural gas instead, as a substitute, we are hitting the coal mining industry. I know that it is difficult to work out a proper pricing relationship, but I suggest that this is an area in which the Government must soon make some decisions or at least give some explanations.
The fast breeder reactor is the key to the whole future of our nuclear technology, as it is in most advanced industrial countries, because uranium supplies are finite and the import price of the metal will steadily rise. It is important that we should have fast breeder capacity in order to maintain the whole momentum of nuclear expansion. The Atomic Energy Authority is now prepared and ready to go ahead with a commercial fast


breeder reactor station. A Government decision must be made soon.
I have already expressed my feelings about conservation. I would only tell the House that page 15 of the report points out:
Furthermore, it is quite clear that the capital sums involved in a sustained energy conservation programme would have to be very large indeed to equal the high costs of developing an equivalent additional supply capacity from North Sea oil and gas, the Selby coalfield, or nuclear power stations. The point was illustrated graphically by Sir Ieuan Maddock (Q. 90): a modest energy conservation programme would have saved more energy than that supplied by all Britain's nuclear power stations after 25 years of research, development and construction effort. 
That last sentence was from a principal Government witness. It is urgent that the Government tell us more about their intentions in respect of conservation.
So much for what I think should be in the Energy Bill but which, unfortunately, is not there. I support the general intentions of the Bill, even though it was described not unkindly in the other place as "a collation of snacks". I must confess myself that, as drafted, the Bill is awkward and confusing. The general intention is to give permanently, in emergencies, powers to the Government of the day to control and direct energy supplies and, after that, to meet our EEC and other international obligations. I do not quarrel with that, and neither should Conservative Members—certainly not in view of their own Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. But their earlier 1972 Act was a typical piece of Conservative economic distortion, which was not asked for by the electricity supply industry. Among other things, it enabled the then Conservative Government to compensate the electricity boards if they advanced projects beyond their due date to assist employment. It contributed to the surplus of generating capacity, which is now so embarrassing to the CEGB. The chief project covered was the Ince station, which was an oil-fired station.
However, I am puzzled now as to why the sum of £25 million in 1972 should have become £45 million four years later. Has none of the original sum been claimed or paid out? If there is still something left in account no doubt that would have to be increased, but I should

have thought that the lot would have been paid out already. Or was that £25 million, in effect, a standby credit, awaiting the day of reckoning and now to be revalued? If so, I think that is careless accounting.
Clause 12, which is typical of the rather ragged approach of the Bill generally, merits consideration. It empowers the Minister to make Orders requiring the fuel consumption of cars to be ascertained and published. Is this to apply only to new cars? If so, I do not think it is any real triumph for conservation, because new cars are usually good in respect of fuel consumption. It is the old cars that waste petrol. The Select Committee on Science and Technology pointed this out in its report. On page 42 it tackled the motor car efficiency question in a much more realistic fashion when it recommended:
Older, less well-maintained cars are often the least economic users of fuel. Checks on fuel efficiency, in relation to the age of the car, should be additional in the statutory sense to the motor vehicle safety tests of the Department of the Environment.
I would have thought that that was a practical, effective and realistic way of tackling this problem. For the Department to pretend that it is helping fuel conservation on the road by giving publicity to the fuel consumption of a brand-new car, with its carburettor perfectly adjusted, shows how far from reality the Department sometimes is. It is surprising that the Select Committee's recommendation has not been met because the Bill now before us was given a Second Reading in the Lords in March of this year and the report of the Select Committee was available about seven months before that.
With these reservations, I support the Bill, but I look forward, I hope in the near future, to a more genuine and comprehensive measure to make better sense of the present United Kingdom energy situation.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: As the last two speakers have said, the Bill does not pretend to set out a comprehensive energy policy. I do not entirely disapprove of that, because I think that rigid policies often lead us into trouble, but it should be read in connection with the other steps that are being


taken—for instance, the research into other forms of energy, particularly solar energy.
I was glad to see from Questions yesterday that the Government are spending considerable sums in that direction. I hope also that they are keeping in very close touch with research elsewhere, particularly in America, where it is on a vastly greater scale. There should be no need to duplicate it. This has great impact upon any policy of conservation, and it is with conservation that the Bill is partly concerned.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) rightly pointed out that there has to be some tandem work in the Bill as between general conservation and what may be necessary in an emergency, but there is, I feel, some conflict about conservation in general. I should like to repay the compliment that the hon. Gentleman paid me in quoting that quite brilliant exposition of Adam Smith, thereby emphasising the excellent relations that exist between the parties in this House—or some of them—in spite of certain local difficulties and motions on the Order Paper. I therefore draw attention to a Question that the hon. Gentleman asked yesterday about the relationship of the allocation of new blocks, the stricter time limit covering the relinquishment of blocks, and attempts to help various industries concerned with oil.
This is a constant difficulty that we are always up against. While we would wish to conserve, we wish on the other hand, to raise standards of living, and so on, and to create employment. Therefore there is often a conflict. The Government wil lhave to make some very difficult decisions if they are to take them on their own shoulders.
The Bill is also concerned with our international obligations, and surely no one can object to the Government taking powers to discharge them. But I suggest that one of the most useful things the Government can do is to show an example in the economic use of fuel. I do not think that anyone who goes about the country can really think that public authorities do this, for in both heating and the use of transport they are notoriously extravagant.
When I see the Secretary of State for Energy arriving at the House of Commons

on a moped, with the Minister of State up behind, I shall know that the Government are really taking the oil situation seriously. Although that may be hoping for rather too much, I put it to the Government that we are constantly receiving complaints from the public that there are appeals to it to conserve fuel but that those appeals do not seem to get through to many of the public authorities. We should be quite clear for whose benefit we are conserving energy and passing many of these Regulations.
In this regard I refer to Clause 8 and to the position in regard to gas. Anyone who reads the House of Lords debate will know that this is a complicated subject, because of the various types of gas involved. But it is a subject in which my constituency is very interested, and our problems must be similar to those in different parts of Britain.
I am not wholly convinced that in the new situation we have the right division between the various huge organisations that deal with fuel. I am not convinced that we were right to deprive the National Coal Board of its holdings in the North Sea. I think that there is some possibility that the British Gas Corporation's monopoly of gas, and the monopoly of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, for instance, in supplying electricity, do not make sense in all parts of Scotland.
In my part of the world gas—other than bottled gas—is irrelevant to the consumer as a method of lighting or heating. No one will pipe gas over the large rural areas of the Islands, but we shall have large amounts of gas of various types brought ashore at Flotta, in Orkney, and at Sullom, in Shetland. We are very anxious, first, that this gas shall be economically used and not simply flared off, and, second, that we shall gain some advantage from it.
At various times I have raised this matter with the Government, the last time being in the Scottish Grand Committee. I had a very helpful letter from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who assured me that the Government are seized of this problem and intend to find, within a reasonable period,
a solution which will make the optimum use of this national asset with the most economic expenditure of capital.


I wholly agree with that, but I am alarmed that the Minister of State also says that
there is a long way to go in the discussions which are at present taking place before a conclusion is reached on how the gas might most economically be used.
After all, it is now many years since we have known that this gas would come ashore, and it is rather alarming to me that there is still a long way to go before there is any firm conclusion about how it is to be used.
It is difficult to trace the history of the matter, but this is of general relevance to the Bill. Occidental offered the gas to Flotta for the generation of electricity and other purposes, and offered to lay a pipe. This has fallen through because the gas board claimed that it had a monopoly in the supply of gas, and that therefore it was not for any oil company to offer it to the NSHEB.
That, in itself, seems to me to be a doctrine that we should oppose. The position has improved since that time, and the electricity and gas boards are in consultation about it, but it would seem very necessary indeed that this gas, when brought ashore, should be used partly for the generation of power.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, also says in his letter that the problem
would be much simpler if there were a guaranteed supply of gas for say, 25–30 years, but the only certain availability at this stage is a limited supply for about three years.
As I have said, this is a complicated technical matter. I have understood that inevitably, if crude were brought ashore, it would bring with it a certain amount of usable gas not necessarily of the highest quality for all purposes. I am not certain what the letter means when it says that there will be
a limited supply for about three years".
No one doubts that the North Sea fields will go on for 25 years or so.
I think that most of the points that I am raising here would probably be best dealt with in Committee, and I would not blame the Minister if, despite his encyclopaedic knowledge of the industry, he held over a few answers for a later stage. But there is a great deal to be investigated about how we should make the best use of this gas.
I fully realise that its most valuable use is as a feedstock, and I know that the chemical industry in this country hopes to recover its fortunes to some extent by making use of this indigenous feed stock. I wholly sympathise with it, and I hope that we shall not flare off great quantities of gas which could be used for other purposes. As this is dealt with in the Bill, I hope that later on the Government will tell us rather more about it.
The question of price is difficult. On the one hand, we know from our experience that Governments are not good at fixing prices. On the other hand, oil prices are already subject to the interference of OPEC countries. One of the great dangers is that those countries may suddenly drop their price, thereby making North Sea oil, if not uneconomical at least very much less profitable than we thought it would be, and having a serious effect on the balance of payments and in other ways.
We must emphasise the extreme difficulty of getting this fuel. There is plenty of fuel in the world, but it is extremely difficult and expensive to get, and we can spend more in getting it than it proves to be worth.
In my constituency the oil development is behind schedule. In Flotta the oil will not flow until autumn. I was assured by many authorities that it would flow last autumn. The only man who thought otherwise was the local manager, who regarded that idea as nonsense. That was denied by everybody else. At present there is an industrial dispute at Sullom Voe, which may hold up the oil supply. I shall say no more on that point, because there is a further meeting tomorrow, and the matter may be resolved.
The public must realise that winning North Sea oil is not like plucking apples from a tree; it is an extremely expensive and difficult operation. Many problems have to be solved by industry before oil can be sold at a profit, and the situation is always difficult to forecast. Obviously, we should not like to see the price kept up artificially. On the other hand, if the price drops suddenly, many calculations will be thrown out. We have to justify the immense investment that is being poured into the North Sea. Therefore, I hope that when we examine the existing powers in the Bill we shall be able


to examine in detail the question of price control either in an emergency period or in general.
Behind all these matters, in financial terms we in Orkney and Shetland are gaining a great deal from the discovery of oil, although to some extent we are suffering in other ways. The ordinary people of this country want to be assured that the benefits that flow to them will be kept in mind. They would like to know that if there is a chance of cheaper heating, motor fuel, and so forth, advantage will be taken of that situation.
A certain danger is involved if we look at these matters too much from a global point of view rather than if we regard oil as a national asset to be used to bring down the cost of living and in other ways to improve our general situation. I await the Committee stage of the Bill, at which time I hope that we shall have a useful discussion. The Bill must be regarded as a miscellaneous provisions measure more than anything else.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and other speakers who have pointed to a confusion in the Bill between questions of crisis measures and the extension of measures which the Government might find it necessary to take as issues involving energy conservation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) that the title of the Bill is a little pretentious. It sounds all-embracing but, as the hon. Member for Oswestry said, it is, in effect, a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
On the other hand, I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman's friends in another place complained that the Bill tried to do too much and sought to interfere with the free market and all the rest of it. I was intrigued to hear the reference made to the fact that it was the oil companies who were out to defend freedom. I am not sure that I would agree with that sentiment. The issue is a little more than the British Government can deal with, and the oil companies are powerful institutions well capable of resisting all kinds of attacks, if that is the right word, from the present Government.
I have listened to many debates in this House on topics such as defence

and foreign affairs, and in such matters we are almost like the Denbighshire County Council seeking to lay down its policy on Vietnam. I am not prepared to accept the premise that the British Government are seeking to usurp our freedoms and that it is the oil companies which are the last bastions in the protection of our freedoms. However, I agree with what has been said about the confusion in the Bill and its title.
The Bill seems to have been used as a bag into which to dump one or two morsels. In the other place the Bill was referred to as a collation of snacks. It is as though the extension of a previous Act is being used to provide for labels to be stuck on motor cars to show the miles per gallon and all the rest of it.
I appreciate that loopholes sometimes have to be closed and hence the provisions to limit flaring of gas. However, after three years of post-crisis situation there is little that we in this country or, indeed, we in the European Community have contributed towards a policy of energy conservation or, as the phrase goes, a. more rational use of energy. We have already brought in speed limits and provisions to control the lighting on advertisements as well as measures to govern industrial buildings. There have also been numerous exhortations to the public.

Mr. Albert Roberts: My My hon. Friend will appreciate that the National Coal Board is a little embarrassed since it has 32 million tons of coal in stock. Therefore, does he not agree that it is not so much a matter of conservation as of using the indigenous fuels we possess?

Mr. Ellis: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure he would agree that nobody would advocate the wasteful use of a source of energy to make things better for a particular sector of the energy industry. It seems to me that little has been done to develop an effective energy conservation policy or a more rational use of energy.
It so happens that the European Community has an objective in regard to this problem involving a rational use of energy. The community aims by 1985 to achieve a reduction in the use of energy from what it would have been had no conservation measures been


introduced. Indeed, the index in terms of energy consumption related to units of GDP means that in 1973 a figure of 1·12 kg. of oil was used per Community unit of account. The objective is that the figure of consumption in terms of GDP should be reduced by 1982 to 1·05 kg. If that were achieved, which means that the conservation programme would be realised, there would be an estimated saving of 240 million tonnes of oil equivalent. It must be accepted that this is a very large potential saving indeed. To that extent we are disappointed that so little has been done in the Bill to achieve that objective.
Yesterday I asked a supplementary question of the Minister of State, Department of Energy, involving the amount of our nation's ongoing capital expenditure devoted to the development of the British sector of the North Sea. I was given a short two-word brush-off—"Not enough". That may be so, but it is a large fraction. Figures have been quoted as great as 11 per cent. of our total capital investment being invested to develop North Sea oil. Here is strong evidence that the question of conservation of energy is important and should be treated seriously by the Government.
So far, that effort seems to have been confined to exhortation and to limits on lighting and other matters. There is another area that is open to a substantial saving in energy, and I refer to the industrial manufacturing sector of British industry. The hon. Member for Oswestry quoted Sir Arthur Hawkins and spoke of the swingeing down-turn resulting from the rising prices. I find the argument on the prices front extremely difficult. If we study the index which illustrates how energy prices have risen in comparison with consumer prices, taking 1970 as the base year and 100 as the base figure, in the last quarter of 1975 Britain's consumer prices increased from the base figure to 176·6 and the price of fuels and energy increased to 177, a similar increase. I obtained these figures from the statistics of the statistical office of the EEC.
In some other countries—notably France, Germany and Denmark—there is a substantial difference in that the consumer index has risen at a slower pace than the energy index. It can be presumed

that those countries have deliberately allowed the price of fuel and energy to increase at a proportionately greater rate than consumer prices. Unfortunately, I do not have statistics to show whether there is a causal effect and, if so, how much of an effect, between prices and energy consumption. I suspect that Sir Arthur Hawkins is probably offering his own personal experience of an industry which is a heavy consumer of fuel.
It so happens that there are great differences between the electricity generation industry and the coal industry, for example, and manufacturing industry. For example, in manufacturing industry fuel costs tend to be comparatively small when expressed as a proportion of total costs. They range from 2 per cent. to, say, 6 per cent. Although manufacturing industry has an institutionalised concern for costs and has cost accountancy procedures, the sharpness of its awareness is blunted by the fact that fuel costs are a comparatively small proportion of its total costs when compared with the costs incurred by heavy industry.
A substantial part of the costs of heavy industry stems from primary fuels. Another factor which makes manufacturing industry such a potentially profitable area to work in from the point of view of saving energy is that in the manufacturing sector returns on investment are usually looked for over a comparatively short period—for example, between two years and three years. In some of the heavier industries, such as the coal and electricity industries, it may be that decades will go by before a return on capital accrues. Anyone who was anxious to sell an energy-saving scheme to an industrialist in the manufacturing sector would have to sell it on the basis that it would produce results in two or three years. That is another reason for that sector of industry being an appropriate sector for study.
One of the great problems is that only a small amount of statistical information is available by which we can make a meaningful assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East spoke about the advisability of testing cars after they had been in service for three years, four years or five years. That would be a good thing, but we do not know whether the effort involved in that testing


operation would be justified by the returns. I am not saying that it would or it would not. We simply do not know.
I am disappointed that, three years after the crisis occurred, so little seems to have been done by the Government in developing their statistical information service to enable us to make a careful assessment of the work that is necessary and the work that has been done.
I sum up by saying that I support the Bill. It is clearly a measure that will get general support. However, at the same time I cannot help but express a great deal of disappointment in that it contains so little that will lead to the development of a sound energy policy. Undoubtedly we do not find in it the conservation policy that it should have contained. Failing that, there should have been an entirely different and separate Bill dealing specifically with conservation and avoiding the confusion to which reference has been made.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I think that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) made a very good speech. I am certain that his ideas on conservation will be read by the Department.
I have thumbed through the Bill, and my comment to the Government is that if they were prepared to accept it I, too, should be prepared to accept it. I am disappointed to find that they have upset many of the Bill's provisions by giving certain undertakings this afternoon. We are now back to square one. In another place, careful revision work was done on Clauses 3 and 8. All that was secured by compromise and negotiation has now been rejected. We are heading straight back to a period of confrontation.
I asked the Minister to refer to Clause 8(2), which is merely a re-enactment. It is a mandatory consent. If natural gas is to be used as feedstock for the chemical industry, the Minister will give his consent. The respectable antecedent for that situation is Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which worked perfectly well for the industry over the intervening years. I think that there has been only one application. There has been no objection from the industry, and I cannot see any objection from the Government of the day. However, we are to turn back,

on the ground that the Government feel that methane could be used to produce methanol, which could be used for gasoline. Of course, a large amount of the methanol could find its way abroad, as a chemical intermediate.
I do not think that the Minister has had an opportunity to study the 1975 report of his own Department on methane-derived alcohols. The report states that
There is no firm evidence that under normal driving conditions the use of methanol-alcohol-petrol blends can lead to significant improvements in petrol consumption or thermal efficiency. With the newer designs of car engines with leaner fuel to air ratios the use of methanol might be a disadvantage both from the fuel economy and driveability viewpoints.
I hope that the Department will study the summary with some care and that the Minister will take it in. The summary states that
the working party considered that there was no proven technical case for introducing a blend of petrol containing methanol and higher homologues as a motor spirit.
What is the point of the Minister's suggestion that he will bring back a certain provision because of the fear of the production of methanol from natural gas, which is very valuable as a chemical intermediate and valuable for the production of ammonia for both fertilisers and synthetic fibres? In other words, he is raising a scare in what is known as a conservation Bill, for purposes that are not there.
I now move to Clause 8(4)(b). Provision is to be extended, and extended not merely to include methane but ethane, butane and propane. This is a singular event, because in another place the amendment as it now stands was accepted by Her Majesty's Government. What they are doing is turning down their own suggestion, or their own acceptance in another place. I have never known a Government to show such inconsistency, but here are the Government hoist with their own petard.
The Gas Act 1972 provided that the British Gas Corporation should have control of natural gas. That is how it came to be interpreted over the years. That applied to gas made from coal and later to methane plus. In the old days everybody knew the specification of gas for


the British Gas Corporation—it was methane, and only methane. That has now been extended to cover liquid petroleum gases. Although the corporation is not an operator in that sector, we are told that it must have extended powers, and that it must go into competition in an international industry in which it has no concern.
When I look further down page 9 I see, in Clause 8(6), that
The Secretary of State's consent under this Section"—
those outside the House may be interested to find out precisely what can be done—
may in any case be made subject to conditions framed by reference to the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be supplied, used or disposed of, or the manner of supply or use, or otherwise howsoever.
In other words, the Secretary of State can say anything he likes and the conditions can be subject to negotiation, in which he brings in whatever terms he pleases. [Interruption.] I did not hear that observation. If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) gets off his seat, we may hear his explanation. I need not bother about that. I go to the architects who will give us guidance on how this matter came about. The Secretary of State is to hold an energy conference, at which he will be the peacock for the occasion. The right hon. Gentleman will listen to many speeches. One paper is to be presented by Frances Morrell and Francis Cripps, his political advisers in the Department.
What do we find?
the Government might exercise direct administrative control and override the merit order of use in the interests of national fuel balance…It has been seen that a planned energy policy would involve deciding which fuels should be used, and by whom and how they should be used, just as much as deciding how the supply industries should develop.
In other words, a complete, planned economy. The Minister of State said that he was captive. The Secretary of State is a fugitive of his Department and the Department is interventionist. They want not a free market ecnomy but one that is strictly controlled. I should have thought that was not in the interests of the British economy.
I should like to bring out one or two of the conclusions that I have drawn in

putting together the permanent controls over use and price that the Secretary of State is seeking. Reading the revised Clause 3 in conjunction with the threatened revision of Clause 8, the Secretary of State will have a level for the introduction of planning agreements into the oil industry and the petrochemical industry. I have confirmation from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I did not say a word.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman nodded his head in assent. It is extraordinary how one can—

Mr. Ashton: I was actually falling asleep.

Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman falls asleep by nodding his head in assent, it is an extraordinary way of doing so. But I have confirmation that that is what the Department is after. It is surprising that it should be moving in that direction. It is like the North Sea package "You can have additional licences provided you give the Government 51 per cent. of your concessions. The use of gas by the chemical industry will be subject to negotiation." The Government will be able to extract what they want in some extraordinary way, which may not appertain to the matter in question.
This proposal could prevent the diversification of fuels by the electricity industry. Such fuels have been captive by the National Coal Board for too long. It will constitute a stranglehold over the input of the petrochemical industry. It will have a bearing on price. It will have an effect not only on naphtha, which is one of the building blocks of the petrochemical industry, but also on the subsequent price of everything derived from it—ethylene, propylene, butadiene, and so on. It will also have the effect of strengthening and extending the British Gas Corporation's monopoly. It will prevent the export of methanol and ammonia. It will devise methods of circumventing exports of certain petroleum products and chemicals contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome. It will also manipulate the petroleum and chemical industries in favour of the BNOC, the British Gas Corporation and the National Coal Board.
The Minister now shakes his head. It is good to have this response. That was not assent, of course.
One need only refer to the BNOC's paper for submission to the energy conference. That suggests that the oil sector should be completely State-managed, just like coal, gas, electricity and nuclear energy. This is supposed to be a new corporation.
Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union—the architect of the great ideas for the unions and management, and on the pay proposals —has indicated that the BNOC should move as quickly as possible into chemicals and plastics, That by itself is disturbing.
I have not overlooked Labour's programme for 1976, which states that
Through planning agreements we must be able to issue in the national interest directives on a wide range of industrial matters.
Even the Emperor Constantine, if he were alive today, would find that there are more edicts now available than in Roman times.
Is this the way to run an industry? When I first heard about the idea of an Energy Bill, I expected a consolidation measure. These are not consolidating proposals. The Government have not done what the Americans have done in their 1975 enactment. They have not accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology—of which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) was the chairman—that we should have many conservation proposals. Several years have passed since the oil crisis in 1973.
The Government have not done what the Federal Republic of Germany has done. The German Energy Protection Law of 1975 is worthy of consideration by this House. The Germans put it this way:
The regulations shall be limited to that means, which are absolutely essential for adjustment to any endangerment to or interruption in the energy supply. Said regulations shall, in particular, be so framed as to interfere to the least possible extent with individual freedom and economic activity, furthermore so structured as to provide for the least possible effect on the overall economy.
I need hardly mention that the German economy is particularly prosperous. Their example, which many have recommended,

should be followed here. Their ideas on conservation should not be overlooked.
My hon. Friend mentioned the various strands in the Bill. It is not an Energy Bill at all. There is little in it on that matter. It contains emergency provisions, which I support, but it also contains provisions that I do not support—provisions that give the Government permanent powers affecting one industry—petroleum and petroleum products.
If a commodity is in short supply—petroleum, tin, lead, zinc, or anything else—are we to have State control over it for all time? Why is the Minister seeking permanent powers for ever? The only review in Parliament is by the negative procedure—a debate of one and a half hours. It is not by the affirmative procedure. There is no need to have it. I think that is correct.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In a domestic emergency it must be by the affirmative procedure. If it is an international emergency coming from Europe, it will be by the negative procedure.

Mr. Skeet: The Minister has not been listening. He is referring to Clause 3 (1)(a) and (b). I am dealing with subsection (3) and the new provisions being brought in for permanent price controls. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the Bill away and study it to his heart's content. I hope that he will get it straight. I am talking not about the emergency powers in Clause 3(1)(a) and (b), but about the permanent powers that he is seeking to bring in in subsection (3). The Minister said that those permanent powers are desirable for the purpose of conserving energy and to effect price control. Those matters are not in the interests of the industry. This is the only industry in the United Kingdom that has been selected for permanent price controls. The tin and copper industries and other raw materials are not under the permanent check of any Government department. Why has the Minister sought to do that here unless he is not to follow the suggestions of the Department's political advisers, Morrell and Cripps, to ensure that the industry is "properly" planned? The Minister may laugh, but he knows that I have hit the nail on the head.
Also, the Minister must ask himself, if he wants to follow the suggestion that this is to be a conservation Bill, what will he do about price controls when they come? If one is going for conservation, prices will have to be high to deter consumption. If the prices are too low, too much will be sold on the market and supplies will be exhausted.
I promised that I would not speak for long on this occasion. Many of my colleagues will wish to speak in the debate. However, I conclude by referring to merely one or two final points on prices. The Government's policy on downside drift, which is a basic minimum price which is being negotiated in Europe today—which is being opposed by the French—is wanted by the Government to keep the price of crude oil at $7 a barrel. Therefore, the Government's prime policy is to keep up the price of crude oil. I can understand why. They want to cash in on the North Sea. For patriotic reasons, I am not against that.
However, let not the Government hood-wink the public. How can they possibly determine the price of products such as naphtha—determine either its use or price—which is quoted in dollars, when the pound is steadily depreciating and when companies have to pay more for it on the market? If the Government mean to do something on prices, let them arrest the depreciation of sterling permanently and adopt sounder policies. They are responsible for the inflation in the economy and for the escalation of the prices of many of the products which are utilised by the chemical industry. Furthermore, how can one possibly determine prices in any realistic manner if one ignores the pressure of demand?
The price of naphtha—and naphtha will be one of the products that will be controlled by the Minister himself—has risen from $37 a tonne to close on $150 a tonne at present. Will the Minister say to the chemical industry "That price is too high. I am prepared to assist you by cutting the price back to $100 a tonne and to give you a considerable subsidy", or will he buy it on the international market and pay for the difference?
If the Government intend to bring in these Socialist proposals, let the Minister say precisely how he will do it. What

is the point of having price controls under the Price Code at the same time as separate price controls by his own Department?
I appreciate that I must not speak for much longer on this occasion. All of these matters will be raised again in Committee.
In conclusion, I suggest that Clause 3 is most contentious. It has been made so by the action of the Secretary of State.
Clause 8 is now totally contentious, because the Secretary of State has sought to divide industry and to fortify the monopoly position of the British Gas Corporation at the expense of the chemical industry. He is putting a premium on the use of gas as a fuel and is denying the chemical industry the right to a premium use—that is, to upgrade it into a chemical feedstock and finally into chemicals.
Tonight we have to vote on the Bill as it is before us. As I indicated in my introductory remarks, I shall not vote against the Bill. However, if the Bill comes back from Committee in a mangled form I shall not be able to give it my personal support.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Colin Phipps: As with all energy debates, I begin by declaring my interests. They are set out in full in the Register of Members' Interests, to which I refer the House.
I start, as other hon. Members have done, by pointing out that in many respects this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed by the House to deal with one of the matters that the Bill does not contain. It has been suggested in the debate that other things could not be put into the Bill. That is not so. There have been miscellaneous provisions Bills in which other things have been included. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill recently before the House, what turned out to be the major item contained in it was introduced in Committee. The element that I should like to see included in this Bill is the consultation document—"United Kingdom Offshore Petroleum Production Licensing, Fifth Round—a Consultation Document".
On 27th May the Secretary of State, in giving a Written Answer to a Question, said that he would be placing a copy of the consultative document in the Library—which he did—and that he was making arrangements for discussion with various sectors of the industry. He said specifically:
I am approaching the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, the Confederation of British Industry, and the trade unions to suggest consultations on the basis of the document. I hope to complete these consultations during June, and then to prepare Regulations, to be laid in due course before Parliament prior to inviting applications."—[Official Report, 27th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 303.]
There is a significant omission in that paragraph—that is, the House of Commons. There seems to be no provision whatever to discuss the document in the House, and the time scale—that is, completion during June—gives us about 15 days in which to discuss it, should the opportunity arise. I know that the Secretary of State has indicated to the industry that applications in the fifth round might be invited as early as 1st August, and I think that that is the date to which the Government are intending to adhere. That means that any Regulation placed before the House—I assume in the form of a Statutory Instrument, although it is not said how the Regulation would be placed before the House—would not be subject to discussion by the House.
This is a very serious omission, because the document raises a number of considerable and important departures from previous practice. These departures are of a number of kinds. There are departures which will technically be bad for the next round of licensing or, indeed, for the development of the industry. There are departures which are bad for the United Kingdom. I am greatly surprised that they should have been included by the Secretary of State.
This is a consultation document and, therefore, this matter is up for consultation. I have to take advantage of this debate to raise these matters in the House. It is wrong that I should be the only Member who should speak about them. I should like us to have a debate on these matters. If that cannot take place on the Floor of the House, let us include it in the Committee stage of the Bill so that at least on Report and Third

Reading the House will have an opportunity to discuss them.
I should like to point out one or two items in the consultation document which seem to require a great deal of thought and discussion. It is proposed that the fifth round should be a much smaller round of 50 or 60 blocks and that they should have a wide geographical spread. I think that the intention of having such a round is fully understood in the House. It is that we should even out activities in the North Sea and in particular the shore-based activities that go along in conjunction with them. We have had enough boom and slump already within the platform-building industry in its short life, and anything that we can do to even out the general development of the onshore industry should be done.
However, in picking a round so small all sorts of questions are raised. First, there are in the North Sea already considerably more than 60 consortia. I do not know how many there are altogether but I suspect that there are about 120. It is certainly twice as many as there are blocks proposed to be issued. These are all consortia that have already developed expertise, and they are spending money in the North Sea. By definition and by simple statistical analysis, 50 per cent. are bound not to get anything. That is assuming that every licence will be a one-block licence. It is very probable that some larger companies—I would not dissent from this—such as the British Gas Corporation, Shell and BP and companies of that kind will get more than one block. If that is so, the number of blocks left over for the 120 consortia becomes even smaller.
I think this will be destructive, in particular to the nascent British oil industry. I make no apologies for speaking up for it as I am very much involved in it. A great deal of work has been put in by British companies and, I would be upset to find that there was a round in which they did not participate.
But there are other technical difficulties with this. We are told there will be a wide spread. This goes against the proper form of developing an area. It is also a two-edged sword. If we give a few blocks in the Western Approaches, it would be very nice if they all gave positive indications. In such an event


the Government would have no trouble at all in getting a lot of people for future rounds. However, if the indications were negative we would have a great deal of difficulty in getting companies to come in future. There have to be a sufficient number of blocks to enable a proper and sufficient technical evaluation to be made of an area. That would allow a lot of work to be done and more information to be gathered which would enable a better understanding to be reached on the geological facts which are needed in finding oil and gas.
In addition, a large number of blocks gives a better opportunity for sharing pipelines. In a purely technical sense, going for a small round is damaging and it seems to be totally unnecessary. I would have thought that 100 to 120 blocks in one reasonable province was a much more sensible way of approaching this problem. It would also get away from another difficulty—the new requirement for relinquishment. Under this, one-third of an area must be relinquished after four years and another one-third after three years. With a larger number of blocks, there would be a degree of flexibility in choosing the areas of the blocks which one would give up. In the proposed circumstances, most licences must be single-block licences. The companies which actually got a licence would find themselves with one block, and after seven years they would have to give up two thirds of it.
Then we come to the requirements for minimum shape and size of an area to be given up. There are existing requirements in this respect which, if continued, would mean that it would be impossible for any company, having found an oil accumulation covering 50 per cent. of its block, to retain more than 50 per cent. of that oil accumulation. This is unfair and the Department must give deeper thought to this point.
There are a number of other issues raised which are important and significant.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is doing the House a great service by enabling this debate to cover the consultative document. Is it his impression that the provisions on relinquishment exist to try to accelerate the exploration activity and, therefore, help the offshore industry? If

that is his impression, would he agree that it is rather unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State declines to give any indication of the possible consequences in platform and rig ordering for the hard-pressed offshore industries?

Dr. Phipps: I think that the consultative document has been prepared with very good intentions in mind. It intends that we should produce extra business and that we should level out what is already going on. Unfortunately, the approach which is taken will not have that effect. I am anxious, therefore, that the House should have an opportunity to debate the Bill. Most of us on this side of the House agree that this is a good intent, but if it is not to be brought about by the consultative document there should be an opportunity to point out the reasons.
The arrangement whereby the BNOC has to pay its share of exploratory and appraisal costs is one which I would question. The only other country I know of which actually does this is Pakistan. I do not know of another country which actually calls upon its national company to pay half its appraisal costs. I am sure it is an aspect which would not be widely approved of on this side of the House if anyone were here to approve or disapprove. Maybe the Secretary of State felt that it was not worth having it in the Bill because the tiny band of us who turn up for these energy debates is not sufficient to give it a proper airing. In any situation in which there may be 20 exploration wells drilling at $8 million a time, the BNOC has to find $80 million. I would rather see that money spent in the development phase.
The Minister says that the BNOC is allowed to enter into agreements, of the kind which it is currently negotiating, for which it would not put up front-end cash. I want to impress on the House that this is a consultative document for the big companies. It certainly is not for the smaller British companies.

Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite extraordinary how the Secretary of State has got away with this one as far as the carried interest element is concerned? The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), the hon. Member for Bolsover


(Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) have all been berating the Secretary of State for becoming increasingly a lackey for the oil majors. Today they are absent on the one occasion when they could develop a case and we could hear from them exactly why they think that the Government have been reneging on the implications of participation which were contained in the General Election manifesto.

Dr. Phipps: It is not for me to tell the House what my hon. Friends below the Gangway might or might not have done. It is a pity that there are not more of them here today. Under the terms of the legislation before us, however, there is no reason for them to come here and debate it. It is a pity that we cannot have a debate which would enable them to do so.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: What the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) says is unfair. My hon. Friends are in Committee elsewhere. I take the point that the consultative document should be discussed in the House of Commons, but this is a matter for the Leader of the House and for business. The document is a consultative document and after consultation it will become the basis of further proposals. There is no statutory need for us to take any further powers in order to carry out what we intend in the consultative document. I might say that this is not exactly the most appropriate place to discuss this matter.

Mr. Biffen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member is addressing the House? Could we have one intervention at a time? The hon. Gentleman may get his chance in a moment.

Mr. Biffen: I would merely like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for explaining why his three hon. Friends were absent. In these circumstances I would not wish my remarks to bear the interpretation that I thought that they were neglecting their duty. I hope they will have an opportunity on Report to make their arguments.

Dr. Phipps: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I realise that I am raising a subject which the Front Bench was not expecting to have to

debate, and I do not therefore anticipate a lengthy answer on these points. My hon. Friend makes the point that this is a consultative document. I understand that the Department of Energy would not be unhappy to see the matter debated. If I am doing anything here today, it is to try to impress upon the House the importance of such a debate so that possibly on Thursday afternoon we may be able to make a concerted onslaught on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange a debate.
I have one final point concerning the consultative document as it affects operating agreements. An operating agreement must be agreed with the BNOC before application is made. Let us suppose that 50 desirable blocks are put up for application and that 50 consortia are interested in them. The quite extraordinary position arises in which the BNOC has to negotiate a separate operating agreement with every one of those consortia for every one of the blocks. I calculate that as 2,500 separate discussions. I do not know whether the technical resources of the BNOC are sufficient to undertake this task, but I am sure that there will be no time between 1st August and the date 90 or 120 days later when the Department makes its decision.
I hope that I have been able to highlight a few of the issues which arise and on which the House might take both a Tribune and a Conservative view. There are many points which need discussing, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a debate on them before 1st August when these matters seem likely to become a fait accompli.
I wish to raise a point about the Bill which concerns the position of the United Kingdom with respect not only to the International Energy Agency and OPEC but to the oil majors themselves. There can be little question that in the North Sea the cost of finding and producing oil dominates the economics of conservation. It is all very well saying that we shall have the ability to conserve, but North Sea oil is extremely expensive to exploit. All the investment is in the front end. It is not like a land field where operators can drill a single well, link it to a pipeline and add other wells as time goes by. All the investment is in the front end in platforms, pipelines


and wells, and the facilities have to be there before operators can begin to exploit the field. That means that the cost of exploitation is known from day one. It puts the country in a difficult position should world oil prices drop below the base economic price for recovering North Sea oil.
It is difficult for us as a country, except in most exceptional circumstances, to tell companies which have made this vast front-end investment that they may not produce their oil at a rate that will cover their investment. Conservation of this kind will be difficult in the absence of high prices. It is therefore very much in the self-interest of the United Kingdom to keep oil prices up.

Mr. Skeet: Does not the hon. Member consider it incumbent upon the Government to make an early statement, subsequent to their December statement, on depletion policy? If they want companies to come in on the fifth round, they must be able to satisfy the companies that they will be able to exploit the oil they discover.

Dr. Phipps: That is one of the most important points that the Department will have to consider in future rounds. Thus, if we can produce more oil than we need we must ensure that that oil can be produced, not merely for the companies' sake but also for the sake of our balance of payments. We have been told recently by the Treasury how marvellous the oil revenues will be, and no one doubts that they will be at $11 per barrel, or even $9 per barrel. But at $7 per barrel the situation changes dramatically.
In a peculiar way, therefore, our interests are not those of the International Energy Agency. In most cases they will be distinct from those of the IEA. Our interests are not those of the major oil companies. They have investments all over the world. It makes do difference to them whether they close in here or somewhere else. Our self-interest is, I believe, aligned with countries like Saudi Arabia more than it is with some of the other OPEC countries. The Saudis appear still to be prepared to support the price of oil at current levels. It makes a lot more sense for them to produce 6 million barrels a day at $11 a barrel

rather than 10 million barrels a day at $8 a barrel. Therefore, our interest is in stability now, and it would require only another Libyan situation to upset the balance.
It could happen that the Russians, for a variety of reasons, might find it expedient to put 3 million barrels of their Siberian oil on the market sometime in the next three years. That could upset the balance so much that the Saudis would be unable to support the sort of price which operates now, and as soon as that support was withdrawn the price would come down.
In arriving at our energy-pricing policy we have to recognise that if the price of North Sea oil drops we shall be faced not only with falling production but with a severe attack on our balance of payments. The idea that to discover more and more oil is good for us would collapse. We might even be in the position where it would not be of the slightest use because we could not get it out. In this connection we must consider the importance of the EEC markets. If EEC directives can determine the price of our oil, we must make it in the interest of the other members that oil prices should remain high. The sooner we do that by getting them to invest in the North Sea, no matter what the route of that investment, the better. I shall feel much more secure about future development and continued production.
I come lastly to gas production and its sale to non-domestic users. In the United States the petrochemical industry has largely gone over to natural gas as a feedstock in recent years in preference to naphtha. There is a very good case for examining the development of North Sea gas as a chemical feedstock, because as such it would be able to attract a price which would make commercial many of the existing gas discoveries and associated gas discoveries which are not commercial. I do not know how the Department would effect a proper balance between the price that the British Gas Corporation wants to charge the domestic consumer—a low price—and a much higher price, which would be competitive with naphtha prices, for the petrochemical industry. Existing gas fields are not subject to petroleum revenue tax but future discoveries will be. If we change that PRT provision, we might give a distinct fillip


to our natural gas and petrochemical industries. I hope that these points will be taken into consideration.

6.20 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the ramifications of the total oil scene. The SNP gives broad general approval to the Bill because we welcome conservation measures. We believe that they are in the interests not only of Scotland and the United Kingdom but of developing nations. The same applies to the price of our natural resources. We should do a disservice to the developing nations if we charged too little for those resources, because they are also the resources of developing nations.
Many of the economic problems of the Western world are due to the fact that for far too long we looked on natural resources as infinite and cheap. We now have to recognise that they are finite and must be paid for. The jobs associated with these resources are not infinite either. No Government can extend the areas in which jobs directly related to these resources will be involved, but I ask the Government to ensure, particularly in Scotland, that these resources are used as widely as possible to prevent the troughs and peaks which we have seen so often in the economy and which bring social as well as economic problems.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: indicated assent.

Mrs. Bain: I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I am sure that, coming from the West of Scotland, he appreciates this kind of problem.
We need to know more about the long-term conservation strategy of the International Energy Agency and the EEC. The Bill is being discussed in a void because we have little idea of their long-term plans. What relevance will the IEA have for resources in Scotland? As today's papers show, Scotland is already self-sufficient in oil. We celebrated 14th June as Oil Independence Day. With 200,000 barrels a day coming ashore, Scotland's needs can now be supplied. Will our resources be used

to supply those of other countries, and how will that fit in with conservation? Will it be surplus resources that are redirected and curtailed? What effect will the IEA have on natural gas? Where does it fit into the equation?
Several hon. Members have mentioned Clause 3 of the Bill. I am sure that some will be surprised to hear me defend the institution of Westminster, but, whatever my views of the shortcomings of this place, it is essential that elected representatives of the people should have full rights of scrutiny over any legislation. In Clause 3(1)(b) the exceptional circumstances are not defined closely enough. It does not appear that the elected representatives will have the right to question in any detail. I hope that we shall receive further definition of the exceptional circumstances and how far any powers used would be extended.
Under Clause 11, since Torness was recently given up as superfluous, will Scottish electricity and gas boards be restricted in their use of gas for power stations?
I welcome the clause relating to cars and fuel consumption as a step in the right direction. Because the new Hunter is doing so well, because of its fuel consumption, all the men are now employed at Chrysler, Linwood, and they are expecting to take on 2,000 more. That is great news for the west of Scotland.
I hope that the standards suggested for new cars will also be applied to used cars. We have to fight many cases for our constituents relating to used cars. In one that I am fighting at the moment, a used car was bought on the basis of misleading information about fuel consumption. If the same standard were applied to used cars, many problems would be avoided.
The wealth of Scotland is in stark contrast to the situation of the whole of the United Kingdom. I am thinking particularly of the cuts in education expenditure, which mean that many local authorities cannot provide their communities with the services they would like to give. When drafting Bills like this, the Government should remember that Scotland will have an Assembly and eventually independence. They should consider such legislation carefully and think of the ease of transfer of such


powers to an eventual Scottish Parliament.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: It is more than two and a half years since the Western world was faced with the energy emergency and the huge increase in oil prices which has led to many of the problems that we are still trying to combat. Although the Government took some measures to conserve energy in December 1974–18 months ago—we still have no conservation policy which merits that description. I was a member of the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) which produced a detailed report containing 46 recommendations for short-, medium- and long-term measures that this country could apply to make more rational use of its energy. That report appeared last September but has still received no response from the Government.
Therefore, it is two and a half years since the first emergency, more than 18 months since the introduction of what the then Government called a "preliminary package"—mostly an advertising and promotion campaign—and a year since the Select Committee reported. We were told in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of this Parliament that the Government would introduce an energy conservation Bill. It is against that background that I must express my disappointment with this Bill.
Far from being an energy conservation measure and a genuine attempt to deal with the problem and to produce more rational use of our energy, it is a hotch-potch of wide-ranging general terms. I regard it as a missed opportunity. Certainly it has very little to do with more rational use policies.
Bearing in mind that the provision of energy is now our most important single industry—it absorbs 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product, which is about £15 billion a year or about the amount that it takes to feed the nation—one would have imagined that over the past two and a half years the House could have found time at least for a debate on the need to make better use of the energy that we have and to provide it more efficiently. Despite suggestions and protestations, however, there has not been a

single debate specifically on energy conservation since the emergency first arose.
We have had several debates on EEC energy policy which have been used as a peg by one or two enthusiasts like me on which to make contributions. And thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, I was even allowed an Adjournment debate in which I was able to make some suggestions about what the country should be doing. But we have not had a debate on the specific matter of providing more rational use policies, despite the emergency, despite the report of the Select Committee and despite the vast resources which are absorbed by the nation in the provision of our energy.
When considering what a large proportion of our energy resources are wasted, I have to refer to the latest report from the Department, which is its first serious contribution towards the production of an energy strategy for the country. I refer to the discussion document on energy research and development in the United Kingdom, published this week by ACORD, of which Dr. Walter Marshall is chairman. That report confirms what many of us have been saying and what many other reports have suggested over recent months: that is, that there is very substantial scope for energy conservation in the country, that only 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's primary energy input performs a useful function and that the other 60 per cent. is rejected. There is no suggestion that we can conserve that other 60 per cent. But the report indicates that we could conserve a considerable proportion of that 60 per cent. and that probably we could increase the useful energy input from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. if we had a constructive rational use policy.
I say this by way of expressing my disappointment that this Energy Bill, which purports to be concerned with conservation, really is nothing of the kind. There are only two clauses which can be described as directly relevant to improving the use and efficiency of our energy. One is the power to control the burn of gas in electricity generation. That is a genuine measure which will reduce the wastage of energy. The second is an extraordinary attempt to advertise the fuel efficiency of motor cars. I shall refer to that again presently. Apart


from those two provisions, the other clauses provide only very wide-ranging powers and controls. They do not introduce constructive provisions for more rational use policies.
In developing the argument that the Government are only paying lip service to the need for more rational use policies, I want to refer to another document which was produced by the Government themselves. It came from the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, of which Sir William Hawthorne is chairman and of which well-known celebrities like Derek Ezra are members. It is a body appointed by the Government to make constructive proposals for the better use of our energy. Last July, it came out with a report to the Secretary of State for Energy. It was a short report and very much to the point, and one significant passage in that report to which, so far as I am aware, the Government have made no response—certainly there is none in this legislation—refers to the disincentives which still exist for energy conservation. It says:
At present there are some clear fiscal disincentives to private consumers…there is a need for the Government to review these disincentives in a more positive way.
There is a wide range of disincentives, and I find it disappointing that in this legislation, despite all the prompting which has taken place over past months from all sorts of bodies and experts, the Government have still not seen fit to attempt to remove some of the fiscal disincentives which exist in our present system of taxation.
We also have another very influential report published several months ago. I refer to the report of the Plowden Committee on the Structure of the Electricity Supply Industry. This again was a report commissioned by the Government. It was presented to the Department of Energy in January. It contains some very significant recommendations about the way in which the electricity industry, if reorganised, could make a more constructive contribution to energy conservation. Here again, I must express my disappointment that we have had no indication yet of even a response to the report. Certainly there is no indication that any of the clauses in this Bill attempts to deal with some of the important recommendations in the report.
I make one brief quotation from paragraph 4.22 of that report:
A good deal of evidence has been presented to us suggesting that the electricity industry could do more to secure the economic use of fuel…The industry's structure must not impede the economic use of resources.
This is not the moment for me to elaborate on the way in which the electricity industry fails to make use of its fuel to the best advantage and the way in which it could be made to improve that position. We know that Dr. Walter Marshall is at the moment producing a report on the combined heat-and-power possibilities for the country, and I have no doubt that when that is published will be the time to debate these matters further.
The fact remains that the Government have ducked the specific recommendations of the Plowden Committee. They have ducked the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy conservation. They have ignored the advice of their own Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, as they have ignored innumerable other bodies. Instead, we have here a hotch-potch of measures under the guise of a conservation Bill which goes very little further towards producing a more rational use of our energy.
If I have not yet made my point, perhaps I might refer to the EEC and remind the House of what is going on there in comparison with what is not happening here. Admittedly there are two clauses in this legislation—Clauses 6 and 7—which are designed to meet our obligations under the EEC to increase stocks at power stations and so on. But I ask the House to consider whether that is really conservation. It does not reduce consumption and it does not remove the inefficiency. It is simple co-operation in case there is another emergency or shortage of supply.
Apart, however, from the directives that we should prepare ourselves for an emergency, the EEC has come forward with a great many other strong recommendations about how we can use our energy more rationally and how we can save energy. The Government have not responded to those in any way. Most of our European partners have either carried out the other recommendations or are


doing so. I hope that the Minister will explain why he has not included other clauses, in addition to Clauses 6 and 7, which would make a more genuine contribution towards energy conservation as recommended by the EEC.
I give three examples of what is happening in the EEC. First, according to the report of the Commission of 16th January 1976 on the action programme for the rational use of energy, every EEC country has proposed or is proposing through its Parliament to provide tax reliefs, grants or subsidies as an incentive to improve heating systems and thermal insulation—every country, that is, except the United Kingdom.
Secondly, nearly every EEC country has provided or is providing incentives to promote combined heat and power production on a bigger scale than already exists for district heating and industry. The necessary incentives for co-operation between industry and the energy utilities are also being provided to encourage the utilisation of reject heat. In Germany, Denmark, Italy and Belgium the proportion of combined heat and power is already much higher than in this country. The condemnation is even stronger than I have suggested, because we are so much lower down the league already compared with our European counterparts. There is nothing in the Bill which removes the disincentives to promoting more combined heat and power, yet this is happening in Europe.
I give a third example of where the Bill fails to implement recommendations which other EEC countries have adopted or are adopting. It relates to the siting of nuclear power stations. The four main countries which are embarking on a nuclear power programme—France, Germany, Belgium and Italy—have all agreed to reserve sites for new nuclear power stations only where they can be associated with industrial complexes, where the processed heat can be used. We are the only country that has not committed itself to do that. According to answers to my Questions to the Department, it has not accepted responsibility for issuing a directive about siting nuclear stations where we can achieve a thermal efficiency above the average 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. That will be possible only if the reject heat is used for industry.
I am disappointed that among the vast powers which the Government are taking unto themselves the Bill, under the pretext of energy conservation, does not include a clause specifically to provide for the siting of nuclear power stations where reject heat can be used.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps unwittingly misleading the House. In the report to which he referred the Community said that three years after the crisis one-third of the proposals had yet to be adopted, and 40 per cent. of those which had been adopted concerned simply public relations and the dissemination of information. Paragraph 9(b) says:
This means that very few steps have been taken to alter consumption structures and it might be feared that the underlying growth trend in energy consumption could strongly reassert itself once economic activity picks up.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful for that intervention. I have studied that report in detail. It is only a digest of more detailed reports, which I have also studied. I was quoting specific examples of areas in the EEC where measures have been taken or are being taken for more rational use, measures which have not been adopted in this country. I gave the example of the nuclear power stations and thermal insulation and heating systems, where our European partners have provided or are in the process of providing the incentives to which I referred and we are not. I am not denying that there are other areas in which we have done as much or perhaps even more. The "Save It" campaign was probably more effective in this country than in other European countries. But that is not the point I was making.
Clause 12 is one of the two clauses which I described as being apparently specifically aimed at energy conservation. It requires dealers in motor cars to advertise the fuel consumption of cars as independently tested—presumably by the Department. That is fair enough. If it is shown that it will be a worthwhile contribution to energy conservation, I shall not quibble about that. But it seems strange if, in a hotch-potch of legislation, we are not to have one clause specifically aimed at some degree of energy conservation.
It is strange that we do not have other clauses which would, for example, make it obligatory for the showrooms of the CEGB to advertise the fuel efficiency of electric cookers and refrigerators compared with gas cookers and refrigerators. If motor dealers must advertise their competitors' products, perhaps to their own disadvantage, why is not the CEGB being made to advertise the cost of running a cooker on electricity compared with the much more economical running on gas? It seems unfair that conservation proposal is not also included.
Why are not builders of houses, such as local authorities. being asked to study the thermal efficiency and cost of heating their homes compared with a well-thermally-insulated and efficiently-heated home? The Select Committee which studied the matter of energy conservation proposed that the consumer should be better able to judge the cost of heating in one home compared with another. This applies to local authority buildings as much as to privately-built houses. It would make a far more valuable contribution to energy conservation than trying to deal with the motor industry.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point of view and I can understand his concern. The Government may well have been thinking that if it was well advertised that the cheaper, mass-produced car did 40 or 50 miles to the gallon the patriotic company-director doing about 10 miles to the gallon in in Rolls-Royces were driving one of the patriotic for me to switch to the XYZ car, which does 45 miles to the gallon." We would then find that patriotic company directors who hitherto drove around in Rolls-Royces were driving one of the mass-produced cars. They would save energy and no doubt save the taxpayers' money, because those company directors write off expenses for tax purposes.

Mr. Rost: I was attempting to draw my theme to a conclusion. I was emphasing that, if we have a Bill which purports to be a contribution to energy conservation, we should at least make it a decent one and have a range of proposals in it which are specific and go some way to meet advice and criticism from many sources.
I have further proposals for the type of clauses that would be suitable. Why not have a new proposal to replace the Government's failed loan scheme to industry? That scheme was small and was not taken up by industry because it was too restrictive. Why not have a proposal to change the statutory monopoly powers of the electricity supply industry, which discourages combined heat and power schemes in partnership with local authorities? Where is the clause to help pensioners and others who are housebound, in the lower income groups and trapped in an all-electrically-heated council house? Those people have to be bailed out by the taxpayers through supplementary benefits to pay their fuel bills and yet they cannot get grants for insulation. Such grants would be cost effective to the nation and would prevent people from having to pay bills for heat which they would not need to consume if they could afford insulation.
A scheme of that kind would make better sense than a continuation of the genuine suffering experienced by a large proportion of people who have no alternative but to have their electricity in short supply or even cut off because they cannot afford the bills. They would not have to pay those bills if their homes were more efficiently heated and properly insulated. Grants are awarded for pantries, kitchens and bathrooms. Why are they not available for thermal insulation? That would save on our balance of payments and it would avoid distress.
I have given a few examples of the type of measures which should be in the legislation. I hope that the Government will not think it is too late to come forward with amendments which could make the Bill a genuine energy conservation measure rather than the disappointing missed opportunity and excuse for wide-ranging control that it is. It should be a Bill which attempts to meet the urgent needs of the nation.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, which is disappointingly attended. I hope that in the future the House will encourage me, as a new Member, by taking a greater interest in the important subject of energy.
I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) too closely. Many of the points to which I wish to draw attention were admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who rightly said that the Bill might well be called the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is little more than a shish-kebab of morsels served up by the chefs at Millbank Tower. It lacks coherence and a guiding theme. Winston Churchill was once reported to have said, when presented with a particularly unappetising pudding at a leading London restaurant, "Take it away, it has no theme". But if we took that line the Opposition might be open to misrepresentation. As the Bill stands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry said, it is broadly acceptable to those of us who take an interest in these matters, provided that it reaches the statute book in a proper form.
In the interests of clear discussion, I hope that the House on this occasion, and subsequently in Committee, will consider the Bill carefully by separating its component parts and examining them closely. That is something that the Department of Energy and its parliamentary draftsmen manifestly failed to do when the Bill was originally presented in the House of Lords.
In an endeavour to practise what I preach, I shall separate three or four aspects of the Bill and say a few words about each of them. First, there are those aspects intended to enable the United Kingdom to meet its obligations as a member of the EEC and a participant in the international energy programme. As the Government argued in another place, it is obviously right that, to prepare for an oil emergency caused by international factors, the Government must have permanently available powers which will enable the United Kingdom to meet its obligations as a participant in the international energy programme's oil-sharing scheme. That means that the crisis management powers in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 must be permanently available without parliamentary approval being renewed each year. I understand and accept that.
The Opposition need to be reassured, however, that under Clause 3 the powers

required solely to fulfil the United Kingdom's obligation to the International Energy Agency and the EEC in an emergency created by an international oil crisis will not be used unacceptably for dubious domestic purposes. We also want an assurance that the Draconian powers in the Bill will be speedily, immediately and even automatically deactivated when, by a decision of the International Energy Agency or the EEC, an international energy emergency is declared to be over.
Secondly, there are aspects of the Bill which are intended to enable the Government to deal adequately with a domestic energy crisis. We must all have learned the often grim lessons of the winters of 1971–72 and 1973–74. There is a need for any Government, of whatever party, to have available appropriate powers and contingency measures for controlling the production, acquisition, use and supply of energy and for regulating oil prices during a domestic emergency, should that be necessary.
I do not wish to quarrel with that aspect of Clause 3 as long as the Bill defines closely the domestic circumstances which will give rise to the activation of such powers and the circumstances in which temporary powers will be terminated when the emergency has passed, although I confess that greater flexibility may be needed at the latter rather than the former stage. The Opposition want to avoid any unnecessary or unacceptable extension of "war-time" emergency powers into the ordinary "peace-time" circumstances of energy use and supply.
Thirdly, there are aspects of the Bill which are intended to enable the Government to exercise permanent controls on the use of energy in the interest of energy conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East dwelt expertly upon this at considerable length. Many of the Bill's provisions are justified in the holy name of energy conservation. The Opposition must guard against any possibility that in the name of conservation the Government will try to extend political control effectively over the oil and chemical industries.
In this context is was appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry to quote the words of the Secretary of State when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the debate on the


Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill on 26th November 1973. Those words serve as a warning to the Opposition of the possible long-range purposes of the Secretary of State when he uses, or perhaps I should say abuses, legislation of this kind.
The Opposition presumably can have no reasonable objection to statutory conservation measures of the kind implemented in the 1973 Act. After all, they did not go very far and were confined to limits on space-heating levels in buildings, restrictions in the use of electricity for advertising and Regulations lowering the maximum speed limits on certain roads. All those measures are common ground between Government and Opposition. It is all desirable stuff, along with the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, for better insulation standards in public buildings and more efficient conversion rates in power stations and in the general process of heat and power generation.
However, if the Government, now or later, attempt to restore their powers for the permanent control of the price at which petroleum products must be supplied—here I am thinking of Clause 3(2)(b)—the Opposition would find such an initiative both illogical and unacceptable. It is illogical because the need to conserve energy is best met by allowing market forces to push up the price, thus reducing demand, as electricity demand has been reduced during the last two year or so. It is unacceptable because, with the exception of the possible need to control the price of paraffin to help old-age pensioners and others, price controls tend to distort the market and often damage industrial profitability. There is no case for singling out the 3,000 or so petroleum products which are affected by the Bill, and as the definition includes naphtha great harm could be done to the chemical industry, which is one of our major export earners.
There are other aspects of the Bill about which my noble Friends in another place expressed serious reservations and sought successfully to have the Bill amended. The so-called "gas clauses" particularly Clause 8, were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I am glad to see that certain improvements were made in

another place. I should like to put them on record because they are useful changes which I should not like to be overriden at any stage of the Bill in its passage through the House.
Consent is no longer required for the incidental use of gas for fuel processes essential to ensure the supply of that gas to an affiliated company. It is no longer necessary to make a first offer to the British Gas Corporation of the gas supplied for use in terminal and similar installations handling North Sea oil and gas. It is no longer necessary to offer the British Gas Corporation the supply for fuel purposes of gas which is surplus to the corporation's requirements. All gas from stabilised crude—that is to say, gas which comes from crude during the normal refining process—is to be subject to the Gas Act 1972, and Clause 10 of the Bill as originally drafted has been removed.
The point here is that industrial users of gas, especially those in the petrochemical sector, need to safeguard their investment and to have confidence to plan ahead for the future. Confidence and investment may be threatened if consents which were previously granted are revoked or if new consents are made subject to more rigorous conditions.
Another area of concern to the industries concerned is the extensive new information powers sought by the Government in the Bill. The Opposition were glad when the Government accepted in another place that information which concerns two parties to an agreement should not be disclosed without the consent of both parties to such disclosure. We also feel reassured that information powers required under our new international obligations should be confined to such purposes, and that there should be a limitation on the number of people required to furnish this information in the first instance.
In general the Bill, as amended and improved in another place, is broadly acceptable to the Opposition and should not been seen as a particularly contentious measure. We recognise the need to legislate to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its international obligations to the European Community and the international energy programme.
We recognise the need for the Government to have adequate powers to deal with any serious domestic emergency. We recognise and endorse the need for even greater energy conservation on a continuing basis. If it is to be effective, it must be on a continuing, permanent basis. At the same time, we question whether it might not have been wiser if the Government had instead introduced a Bill confined simply to meeting the needs of energy conservation.
Underlying everything else, we remain deeply, and I think justifiably, suspicious of the Bill, which has ben introduced, I would suggest, by a doctrinaire Labour Minister with avowed doctrinaire intentions. Anyone who seeks to challenge me has only to refer to the quotation already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry. At the same time, it is a Bill justified in the holy name of energy conservation which nobdy in his right mind, looking at the problem reasonably, would seek to oppose.
We therefore find ourselves in a somewhat difficult position, with a great need to keep a wary eye on the implementation, if not the precise wording, of the Bill as it goes through its subsequent stages. It is fair to ask of the Government, both this evening and in the Bill's subsequent passage, to state their motives and intentions, and the limits to those intentions, in carrying through this legislation.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Neil MacFarlane: May I at the outset of my brief remarks point out that I was employed by the oil industry for a number of years before I entered the House of Commons. I worked for Shell-Mex and BP in the BP United Kingdom market. Although I have no direct pay links with them now they are the custodians of my pension, so it is hardly surprising that I keep more than a passing interest in what the oil industry is doing. It is in that context that I want to speak this evening. I must apologise for not having been present throughout the entire debate due to pressures outside the Chamber of which hon. Members are obviously well aware.
The Minister of State, whose presence at the Department of Energy many of us find reassuring, swept through his speech today at breakneck speed, ignoring vast tracts of the copious notes prepared by a diligent body of gentlemen behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. It seemed that the Minister was ignoring his speech because he believed he had a deadline to meet at 7 o'clock. The reason certainly could not have been the serried ranks of Back Benchers sitting behind him anxious to participate in the debate, as few have been present throughout.
I wish to spend a little time on the special powers which exist in the Bill. One aspect which concerns us is in respect of price controls because, in view of the Minister's remarks, it seems that the remarks made in another place are likely to be overruled when we go into Committee. I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to this during his winding-up speech.
It seems certain that the Government will attempt to return to permanent price controls on the supply of petroleum products. That would be wholly unacceptable to many of us on this side of the House. The Government already have extensive price control powers under the Price Code, and the price of paraffin has been pegged as a relief to old-age pensioners under the Fuel and Electricity Control Act 1973.
I believe that there is no good reason for singling out petroleum products for special treatment in this way. The definition of "petroleum products" for the purposes of the Bill covers a range of more than 3,000 products. Even if the Government were to implement controls for a limited number of those products, the effect would be to distort the market and it is likely that the oil companies would have to raise other prices to maintain their margins. This definition would inevitably include naphtha, which is the vital feedstock for the chemical industry. There can be no connection between the powers to hold down prices and the need to conserve energy. On the contrary that would involve higher prices, and surely the purpose of consumer protection is to maintain prices as low as possible.
The one aspect which concerns me deeply is the question of the Secretary of State's special powers. At first sight,


it looks as though their lordships had passed a relatively harmless Bill, but the aspect which causes great apprehension is the frequent reference throughout it to the powers which the Secretary of State may have. We are not in the emergency situation that we were in three years ago. I was working full-time in the oil industry in 1973 and I well recollect the enormous problems we had during that period of dire emergency—problems of production, transportation and supply. I well recall the remarks made in this Chamber on 26th November that year to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) referred.
I draw the attention of the House again to what the Secretary of State for Energy said in one particular sentence. He stated:
It will give us the power to control all the oil companies, all the multi-nationals, to fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use, including the chemical industry, will be brought within the control of the Government of the day. This will include road transport and private transport."—[Official Report, 26th November 1973 Vol. 865, c. 141.]
That phrase
It will give us the power to control all the oil companies
struck chill into all of us in that industry. We find that is now pretty well enshrined in the Bill and is the next best thing to nationalisation.
Page 1 of the Bill states:
The Secretary of State may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, acquisition or use of—
(a) any of the following substances, namely—

(i) crude liquid petroleum, natural gas and petroleum products;
(ii) any substance, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, not falling within sub-paragraph (i) above…"etc.
It adds:
electricity.
It says in Clause 2 that
The Secretary of State may by order provide for regulating the price at which crude liquid petroleum, natural gas or petroleum products may be supplied.
On page 2, in respect of:
Reserve power to control by government directions",

it states that
…the Secretary of State may give directions—
(a) to any person carrying on an undertaking in the course of which he produces any substance mentioned in section 1(1) above….
Throughout the Bill we see the Secretary of State taking extra special powers. We see it on page 5, where
The Secretary of State may direct any person who he has reasonable cause to believe is or may be party to an agreement exempt by virtue of this section to furnish him with such particulars of the agreement as may be specified in the direction.
Page 6 refers to the powers he can have over the "bulk stocks of petroleum."
There are other sweeping and extensive powers throughout the Bill. I wonder whether this is not, perhaps, the first step towards the much-sought-after objective of the Secretary of State to nationalise the petroleum industry. This may well be the first step. The Minister of State looks a little dubious, but I hope that when his hon. Friend replies we can have some assurance to the House that this is not the case.
I think that the Bill warrants close scrutiny in Committee. I hope I shall be a member of that Committee, because there is much which needs to be explored and improved. I hope that maybe the time factor is not so pressing upon the Government Front Bench at the moment and that it will enable the Minister's colleague to give us a little more detail which the Minister of State felt so reluctant to do earlier today.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I think it fitting that in this debate we have a maiden speech on energy from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). If what he said is any indication of what we are likely to get in future, we all hope that he will continue in his new rôle and frequently take part in our debates.
It would be courteous of me if I mentioned the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), whom I do not recall having participated previously in an energy debate. I am sorry that she is not in her place. A great deal of what she said was not agreeable to me, but she mentioned that she was worried about


the right of scrutiny in regard to Government Bills. We certainly agree with her in that, and hope that she will be fortunate enough to find herself on the Committee dealing with the Energy Bill, when she will have ample opportunity to put into practice that which she professes.
The introduction to the Bill by the Minister of State was delivered with his usual moderate style. He perhaps let the cat out of the bag a little when he said that what the Government intended in Clause 3(1)(a) was parliamentary control on the same basis as in the 1973 Bill.
We believe that, since the powers being sought at the present moment by the Government are permanent powers and the 1973 powers had to be annually renewed, there is a strong case for having stronger control and even more scrutiny. But we can deal with that point at greater length in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) made what I think we all found to be a very interesting speech. He was particularly skilful in the way be deployed his argument. His observations on the relationship between OPEC and the consuming countries proved almost as interesting to those of us on the Opposition side as did his comments on the relationship between the Department and the companies. I am sure that that is an aspect on which we would have liked him to expound at greater length.
The debate has been very interesting, but I am bound to say that I found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) when he remarked on the very poor attendance in the Chamber this afternoon, particularly on the Government side. I cannot help feeling that this, to some extent, is related to what can only be described as the ham-fisted way in which the Government set about organising their business this week. Originally, in discussion we were given to believe that we would have an all-day debate on this subject. That was quite reasonable for a Second Reading of a very important Bill. Then, to our horror, we heard the announcement by the Leader of the House last Thursday that we were to have only half a day. Then, yesterday afternoon, we heard that an extension

of one and a half hours was to be given, but by then the damage had been done. Many people on both sides of the House, who would have liked to take part in the debate, having heard that it was to be only a half-day debate, had made other arrangements, and therefore found it impossible to be here today in order to take part.
I hope that the Leader of the House will realise that when important legislation is to come before the House it is not good enough, simply because the Government have already lost three and a half days of valuable time, simply to knock it off an important subject, such as energy. We naturally assumed, when the Government decided to give only a half-day to this very important Bill, that they had already taken a decision with regard to the content of the Bill, and would accept it as it came back from the Lords. We would have welcomed this. That was the only reason we could think of for the short time—

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members are disappointed and that what we want is a full day's debate on energy? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the miners' group have a very great interest in it. It is because of the business arrangements that some of the Members sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers are not here this evening. They would have liked to give their point of view on this subject. For the last 30 years Governments have not been able to give us the right kind of reorganisation. It is not just this one Government.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. He has made a very reasonable point. Many of us on the Opposition side would join him in his representations to the Leader of the House if the hon. Member were to ask for a full-day debate on energy.
The Bill, as it has come back to the House, is broadly acceptable to the principal Opposition. We should like to see a number of minor amendments made, but had the Government considered accepting the Bill in its present form there would have been great support from us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), in one of his more robust speeches, pointed out in no uncertain terms that he considered that a state


almost of confrontation had been reached as a result of the Government's insisting on bringing back Clause 3 in its original form.
We believe that the other place has greatly improved the Bill. Originally it seemed to be an innocuous enough piece of legislation. I remember talking to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. He said "When the Bill comes out it will be a tidying-up measure, following very much on the lines of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973." But, of course, we had had experience of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill 1975, which had a similar history. Before it saw the light of day we were told that it was to be a relatively innocuous measure, but that was proved to be quite wrong. When the Bill was presented and we started examining it in depth, we discovered that it went a great deal further than its predecessor. It caused a great deal of worry to those who were involved and were to be affected by it.
The oil companies, the chemical companies and some of the nationalised industries had considerable reservations about what was contained in the Energy Bill, and industry warned the Government. On 8th April 1976, the day on which the Bill received its Second Reading in another place, there was an article in The Times by the energy correspondent, in which it was stated that
The Bill, which comes up for its Second Reading in the House of Lords today, has, company executives say, been presented as legislation to enable Britain to meet its commitments to the International Energy Agency. But they feel the legislation goes far beyond this, particularly in the sections requiring companies to disclose information and forecasts about their operations. Powers are so wide in this direction that it amounts to the basis for 'backdoor' planning agreements, they claim, and is contrary to the voluntary spirit of the Department of Industry's proposals on planning agreements.
We feel that that was quite a fair criticism. Indeed, it was reflected in many different quarters. A few days later, on 12th April 1976, when the Bill was in Committee in another place, the energy correspondent of The Financial Times said:
The Government has been told that future North Sea development and, possibly, the building of ammonia and other chemical plants, could be affected if control of natural gas becomes a State monopoly. Oil companies are also anxious. The industry points

out that deals like the $1 billion (£535 million) liquefied petroleum gas export contract announced by Shell last week, could be hit by the new legislation.
These are serious worries that people in the industry have had. I understand that there have been a number of consultations between industrialists and members of the Government, but I do not think that all the fears have been sorted out, by any means.
Some of the amendments made in another place are welcome, but there remains a considerable amount to be done. If the Government insist on reinstating certain of the clauses, it may take some time. Concern has been expressed not only by people outside this House; in the debate today, concern was expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) referred to certain draft matters as being confusing. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), to whose speeches we always listen with great interest, was worried about Clause 7 and questioned the Minister about coal stocks at power stations. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that point when he replies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said that in terms of conservation the Bill does practically nothing. He also drew attention to the great need for legislation on that aspect of the matter. My hon. Friend, and also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, drew attention to the report of a Select Committee of which they were both Members.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Phipps), who said that it was wrong that the consultative document on the future round of licensing had not been presented to the House for debate. He said that he wished that the contents of the licences had been included in the Bill. That was a fair criticism of his own Secretary of State.
We all know that the Secretary of State for Energy is a very busy man indeed. However, when the House is dealing with a Bill as important as this one, surely he could have taken a little time this afternoon to hear what hon. Members have to say on the measure. No doubt he has a


very good excuse for not attending, but it is significant that, because it is obviously a measure that is not bubbling over with publicity for the right hon. Gentleman it does not attract him. If this were a Bill that attracted a great deal of emotion—a matter on which the Secretary of State could make a tub-thumping speech—I am sure that he would be here; let us make no mistake about that. In any event, I shall have a chance to say a little more about that topic in the next round of licensing.
The Bill was unquestionably prepared in haste. A number of drafting alterations have already been made, and I feel sure that others will have to be made. If the Government are prepared to accept the Bill as it came from the other place, I am sure that the Committee stage will proceed at great speed. However, if the Government insist on replacing the objectionable clauses, inevitably the Bill will take rather longer to get through the House.
We take particular exception to the permanent price controls and to the gas clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford dealt fully with our objections. We fear the controls sought by the Secretary of State. We know that both the Minister of State, Department of Energy, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy are highly capable though mild, moderate and reasonable men, but we are apprehensive, to say the very least, about the Secretary of State for Energy. Furthermore, I believe that we represent in that view a wide body of opinion not only in the House but outside it. Perhaps in this context I may refer to the Old Testament, to which I go for an analogy. I refer to the two sons of Isaac—Jacob and Esau. If I may relate the analogy to the Bill, I must point to the Ministers as being the hand of Esau, but the voice of Jacob—and it is that voice, the voice of the Secretary of State, that is behind the thinking in the Bill.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It is the wrong way round.

Mr. Gray: No, it is not. If the Minister checks his facts, I think he will find that he is wrong.

Mr. Skeet: Where do the parliamentary advisers come in? It is they who direct the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gray: I do not wish to trail the poor old parliamentary advisers through the mill at this stage. The Secretary of State for Energy is the person who has to answer to this House, when he is here, and in that event we shall reserve our criticism for him rather than for those who advise him. After all, he is not bound to take their advice.

Mr. Macfarlane: When my hon. Friend says that the Secretary of State is answerable to this House, does he not agree that once the Bill is passed the Secretary of State will not then have to answer to the House for much of the legislation that is now being considered?

Mr. Gray: That is a reasonable point. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue it in Committee.
We feel very unhappy about the situation in regard to Clause 3. Our concern, and, indeed, the concern of the Opposition in the other place was, first, to ensure that powers required solely in the event of international crises are not used illegitimately for purely domestic reasons and, secondly, that domestic powers are used only in an emergency.
The purpose of the amendments in the other place was not to alter the powers themselves but to limit their application specifically. We regard these powers as important in implementing international obligations during an international emergency, or in dealing with a situation in which essential energy supplies and distribution facilities are threatened—for example, in a genuine domestic crisis—but we have great fears as to their implementation in terms of this Bill.
We are against the introduction of permanent price control, which will do nothing whatever to help conservation. Indeed, it will be difficult to administer, and will damage confidence. We know that such a policy does not work effectively elsewhere and, if the Government insist on reintroducing this clause, we shall oppose it vehemently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) dealt at length with the gas clauses. They are acceptable to us in their present form.


I emphasise the necessity to retain freedom in terms of refinery gases and also the gases used in refinery flaring.

Mr. Skeet: Clause 9 deals with flaring. My hon. Friend will be aware that if the Government persist in the present wording of the clause it will cost the chemical companies a total of £1 million to install the necessary equipment. Surely that would be a waste of the nation's resources?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend emphasises a most important point. I am sure that he will seek to deal at length with that matter in Committee.
In regard to the proposed consent procedures, it is important that companies should retain their existing freedom, with the necessary exceptions, rather than that they should be given only qualified freedom, which would tend to undermine commercial confidence.
The changes in regard to Clause 8, if left in their present form, would have dramatic consequences. In one step the chemical industry would be cut off from supplies of a vital raw material. All rights of the industry to use natural gas as a feedstock would be lost, except as dictated by the Secretary of State. The impact would be felt not only in the fertiliser sector but throughout the plastic resin, synthetic fibre and rubber industries. The impact would also be felt by intermediates, such as pharmaceuticals and dyestuffs. At the very least, Parliament has an obligation carefully to consider how the national interest will be affected if that sort of legislation goes through without any check.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has managed to spare some time to come to the Chamber to hear what we have to say. We welcome him to our gatherings. I hope that he will read my speech tomorrow so that he will know what I had to say about him. I acknowledge that he is probably very busy. As I say, we are delighted that he has been able to come along.
We believe that this legislation will create considerable uncertainty. As regards the gas clauses, it is reasonable to point out that the completion of a major chemical plant that depends on gas from the discovery of a North Sea gas resource

can take from eight to 10 years. That, together with the life of the plant itself, which is from 10 to 15 years, is the period during which security of supply and constancy of legislative conditions are necessary. We are not satisfied that any Government will be capable of maintaining the necessary uniformity of purpose over as long a period as that.
It is not an answer for the Minister to say that the Secretary of State may give consents to specific projects, because before considering a chemical project the exploration and development of the gas field has to be undertaken. In its present form the Bill will inhibit participation in exploration activities for gas users. This is a worrying situation and one that I hope that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State will think about carefully before the Bill is considered in Committee.
I know that when a Government prepare their legislation they are reluctant to give way on some aspects that they consider to be vital. However, I suggest to the Minister of State that legislation in the amended form that he has said this afternoon he intends to introduce could have an inhibiting effect on the chemical industry, an industry which is responsible for providing a great many jobs. We have seen, to the regret of us all, a decline in orders, for example, in the platform industry. I do not expect the Minister of State to agree with me, but I believe that to some extent the decline has been caused by a lack of confidence in the policies that the Government are pursuing.
I accept that the Minister of State could quite fairly present a contrary argument, but I believe that the policies that the Government are pursuing have to a large extent played their part in the decline. It would be disastrous if, for any reason of dogma, the Government were to insist that they reintroduced the legislation that they propose, which would have an impact on the gas clauses. That is terribly important, and I hope that the Minister of State will take it on board. I am not trying to make a political point; I am arguing what I consider to be a reasonable case for the industry.

Dr. Phipps: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about gas exploration. It


is a matter that I dealt with in my own speech. Running through everything that he has said is the theme that has been put to me by people in the petrochemical industry over the past few months—namely, that in some way the demon, in the shape of the Secretary of State, will reduce prices to such a level that the whole industry will collapse, nothing will be done, and the present petrochemical complex will be put out of business. I find it difficult to see why any Secretary of State should want to destroy the British petrochemical industry by doing that. I have not yet heard an argument from Conservative Members or from the industry to tell me why my right hon. Friend should wish to take that course.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I am sure that the last thing that this Secretary of State or any other Secretary of State would wish willingly to do would be to damage the industry. However, we believe—certainly this is what the industry believes—that the industry is being put at risk as a result of this legislation. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman would do if he were on this side of the House, we believe it is our duty, as a responsible Opposition, to argue as strong a case as we can on behalf of the industry and to try to convince the Government that what we want to do is to the greater benefit of the industry and in the national interest, and of greater benefit than what the Government seek to do.

Mr. Skeet: As I understand it, it is the Government's argument that there might be a shortage of methane and that the British Gas Corporation wants as much as is available from the North Sea, but as the United Kingdom has about 38 years of reserves left—Sir Arthur Hetherington mentioned a period of 25 years ahead—there appears to be no shortage for the small requirements of the chemical industry. Would it not be more appropriate to leave that supply to the chemical industry, which is of greater value than gas, and not use it for burning?

Mr. Gray: Obviously my hon. Friend has made a good point. I have no doubt that that is an argument that will be deployed in Committee.
As I have tried to explain to the Minister, we believe that the Government must take on board the necessity to encourage confidence in the industry. The information that is required in Schedule 2 is something that is giving the industry considerable worry. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that the requirement in the Bill in no way exceeds the requirement laid down for us as a result of our EEC membership. Those outside this place would be assured if such a statement were made.
The oil companies and the chemical companies make enormous investment in this country. The hon. Member for Wrexham asked about the amount of GDP invested in the North Sea. It was an interesting point. The Under-Secretary of State may have the answer when he replies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, in a Question, recently asked what proportion of investment in the North Sea had come from private sources and what proportion had come from the Government. The answer was that 94 per cent. of all investment in the North Sea has come from private sources. That highlights the importance of the private sector of the industry. If ever there was an argument against nationalisation, that is it. In the event of nationalisation, where would investment come from? Do we believe that it would be available in years to come, as in the past? My right hon. and hon. Friends do not have that belief.
Confidentiality, in terms of Schedule 2, is of paramount importance. We wish to see the burden of supplying information kept to a minimum. It is an enormous task to supply the required information. That is apparent when one discusses the problem with people in relatively small ways of business. They spend a considerable amount of time in form-filling and supplying information. When that time is multiplied to reflect the demands on national or multinational companies, we can get some idea of the time-wasting performance that is involved.
During the passage of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill we expressed doubts about the wisdom of creating the British National Oil Corporation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned today, our


fears were well founded. In the Financial Times of Monday 14th June, under the headline
BNOC call for more State control of oil
we find:
The second development is the strong reaction by the nationalised gas and electricity industries against what they consider to be unwarranted attempts by Mr. Benn's political advisers to interfere with their commercial freedom.
On the one hand, we have the BNOC demanding more nationalisation and State control and, on the other, we have considerable reservations from other sections of the nationalised industry about the amount of control that has already taken place.
The Secretary of State has been congratulated this afternoon—not by me, but by one of his Back Benchers—on his initiative in organising the energy conference.

Mr. Palmer: I think that it is now the policy of the Opposition to support the mixed economy. What is the objection to the mixed economy in North Sea oil, particularly in view of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman showing overwhelming private investment? Does it hurt very much to have a little public investment as well?

Mr. Gray: That remains to be seen. At present we are having public investment through participation agreements that have been entered into by the BNOC. We read in the Press—the Secretary of State confirmed it during Question Time yesterday—that discussions are now taking place with Shell and Esso. There seems little doubt that the result of those discussions will be some form of participation with those companies. Whether that form of participation will follow the thinking of the Secretary of State, as he would like to see it progress, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, there is that participation.
We believe that is unnecessary. We believe that where there is an almost unlimited amount of private investment for the purpose of developing North Sea oil resources, State intervention is not required. The State has its own power, in terms of the clawing back of remuneration in due course. There is no need for

the BNOC to operate in this area. It would be better to leave the exploration, development and production of North Sea oil to those who are already highly qualified in that sphere. The money can be got back through the normal taxation system.
To return to the energy confidence, there is an article in The Sunday Times of 23rd May dealing with certain of the questions that will be posed as a result of that conference.
It may be that the Secretary of State has hit on a good idea—I should be the last person to try to take ony credit away from him in that respect—but I wonder whether the conference that has been organised—given its size—provides the most likely way to arrive at decisions at the end of the day. I fear that this will be a publicity exercise from which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State unquestionably will benefit. I doubt whether anybody else will gain a great deal from it. If the right hon. Gentleman initiates a discussion with high-powered people which, at the end of the day, leads to some constructive and concrete proposals, his time will have been well spent.
The motor industry is worried about the Bill. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. is particularly appalled at what is said concerning the determination and publication of fuel consumption for motor vehicles. I believe that that is a bit of a gimmick—a sham. I do not see how it can be accurate at the end of the day. How can statistics on petrol consumption by cars possibly be accurate? Surely much depends on how a car is driven and by whom it is driven. For example, hon. Gentlemen and I could drive down the M1 together. I could have my foot hard down on the floorboards whereas hon. Gentlemen could observe the 70 m.p.h. limit. At the end of the day there would be a vast difference in petrol consumption. I do not see how statistics can be accurate in that respect. They will cause a great deal of difficulty for the industry.
The magazine Autocar is particularly worried about this aspect, because of the complexity of Government Departments


that will be involved. In an article on 29th November it states:
As an example of how the ever-spreading tentacles of bureaucracy in this country are starting to twine themselves into an almost impenetrable mess, the Government's proposals for publishing fuel consumption figures are a classic.
Our first enquiry on who was running the scheme was directed—appropriately enough since they ran the type approval and emission testing schemes—to the Department of the Environment. However, they said that they were not dealing with the fuel economy side of testing, but rather thought that the Vehicles Division of the Department of Industry was looking after the tests. The Department of Industry admitted to running the mpg part of the testing, although they acknowledged that the figures would be taken at the same time and on the same occasion as a vehicle was emission tested by the DoE. The Department of Industry evidently feels that as the subject of the exercise is economy, the Department of Energy ought really to be concerned with the mpg testing…
However, as soon as the Department of Industry publishes the figures (which incidenttally the manufacturers will not be forced to use in their publicity material), yet another department enters the arena. This is the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, who will be responsible for investigating Trade Descriptions Act implications of the figures and the performance aspects of consumers' cars.
That seems to be a bit of a shambles, does it not? I hope that as we plough our way through the Committee stage of the Bill we shall be able to achieve a simplification of these matters.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in America, the home of free enterprise—where, as Galbraith says, free enterprise is a minor branch of theology —there is a requirement that in 1980 motor cars will be forced not simply to have labels on them but to run at guaranteed mileages per gallon?

Mr. Gray: I am sure that, with their ingenuity, the United States Government will devise something slightly less complicated than I have just quoted from Autocar. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Keith Stainton: It is a question not only of the United States Government but of the United States motor manufacturers. I am particularly interested in the numbers of civil servants who will be involved. Is my hon. Friend able to enlighten us on that aspect?

Mr. Gray: That is a question that we shall be putting to the Minister of State in Committee. I should not care to put a figure on the numbers of civil servants who will be involved. It may be that in his winding-up speech the Under-Secretary of State will give an indication.
We believe that the permanent powers on price control of petroleum products and on energy use and the possession of permanent powers to enable the State to obtain a wide range of confidential information are not desirable. We believe that those aspects of the Bill should be very carefully examined by Parliament. We shall seek to do that in Committee. We shall be constructive, but we shall endeavour to improve the legislation in Committee.

8.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gordon Oakes): We have had an interesting and very wide-ranging debate. It is inevitable that it has been wide-ranging when the title of the Bill is the rather grandiloquent one of "Energy Bill". It is a rather high-sounding title for what is an important and useful Bill but a Bill which, perhaps, does not do many of the things that the title would lead the House to believe that it will do.
Most speeches, surprisingly enough, for one of two reasons, have criticised the Bill for what is not in it. Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), wanted more measures with regard to conservation and they criticised the Bill for not containing them. They said that it was a sin of omission in the Bill. Opposition Members are possibly very concerned with the sin of omission. Hon. Members have also been criticising something that is not in the Bill but which we hope subsequently, in Committee or on Report, to put into it.
The differences between the two sides of the House in regard to the Bill as it stands are almost non-existent. On matters where there is disagreement between the two sides—for example, on Clauses 3 and 8—no doubt a large measure of agreement can be reached on some of the minor points, but on the


major points there are inevitably differences and difficulties that arise between us.

Mr. Skeet: Why do not the Government leave the Bill as it is?

Mr. Oakes: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman shortly. We shall not leave the Bill as it is because, for instance, we are not satisfied that some of the things that the other place did will provide sufficient energy conservation measures. It is not a case of ratting on undertakings given in the other place in the matters that we are trying to put back into the Bill. In Committee and on Report and even in that rather peculiar procedure in the other place—Third Reading—we divided the House each time. The other place being what it is, we lost; but we fought it all the way through on these points.
I was saying that the Bill is being criticised for what it does not contain. I want to discuss some of the speeches we have heard today and to say what the Bill is not. The Bill is not a substitute in itself for energy policy or for the energy forum which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be conducting a week from today. I am glad that hon. Members congratulated my right hon. Friend on the idea of that energy conference, where all people concerned with energy, not merely energy producers but energy consumers and energy industries, will at least be physically present at one conference and will be able to talk to one another and to put in papers. If they are not called upon to speak, they will subsequently be able to have their views put on record. This is very useful for public participation. Every political party in the House has been invited and every parliamentary political party has received an invitation to send someone to the conference. We want this to be as wide a public debate as possible.
However, the Bill is not that conference. Neither is the Bill a definitive Bill on energy policy. It cannot be. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) said that he wondered whether an energy policy would emerge from all the discussion. Of course it will not—not immediately. It is not the sort of conference at which one passes a resolution and then goes away having an energy policy settled for the next 30 years. However,

an invaluable contribution will have been given by all sections of the public and by the industries to help the Department and the Government to get an energy policy in which there has been genuine public participation.

Mr. Skeet: When is the Bill on conservation coming, as recommended by the Select Committee's report?

Mr. Oakes: I hope that hon. Members will be patient. I shall be dealing at some length with conservation. I have a particular interest in that subject.
The other criticism, which came most forcefully in a very excited speech from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) —I have no doubt that it was a very heartfelt speech—and from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who spoke on the same theme, as did the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), was the theme that somehow or other contained in this apparently harmless Bill is a sort of skeleton key which will open the road to full-blooded Socialism for the oil industry. That is how it has been represented by some hon. Members.
I leave Opposition Members with this thought. The Bill limits the powers that the Secretary of State now has to do all the things that they were complaining the Bill would allow him to do, because he has those powers under the 1973 Act, which was passed in emergency circumstances by a Conservative Government, and the powers have been renewed and are still in existence. The Bill limits those powers. Therefore, when hon. Members ask where my right hon. Friend has been, if he is the villian of the piece as they have been describing, I would say that probably this afternoon he has been back at the Department busily using his powers under that Act before this Bill is enacted and takes them away from him.
It is nonsense for hon. Members to suggest that the Bill in any way increases powers to take over industry and so on. The Bill is basically dealing with energy conservation, but it is also dealing with emergency conditions—this is what hon. Members do not seem to realise—that are triggered off by set events that I shall discuss later, triggered off either because of an international emergency when an international authority requires us to do something because of a treaty obligation


or because of a domestic emergency in this country. If it is a domestic emergency, the position is that it is by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament that the powers contained in Clauses 1, 2 and 4 come in.

Mr. Rost: Why, then, are the Government proposing to introduce permanent powers on price control? Is the Minister assuming that there will be a permanent emergency, or that price controls make some contribution to energy conservation?

Mr. Oakes: When Ministers give way at such a stage in their speeches, inevitably it turns out to be on a point to which they will be coming later. Hon. Members should be patient. I shall cover all these points.
On the face of them, Clauses 1, 2 and 3 look Draconian, but they are Draconian to the extent that any Government need Draconian powers in an emergency situation. However, they are emergency powers. For example, if it were a domestic emergency as distinct from an international emergency, the position would be this. An Order would have to be laid. It would have to have affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament, and if within 28 days it did not get that approval it would lapse automatically. An Order which was approved would lapse after 12 months unless it was reaffirmed by the House. We are dealing with emergency conditions.
This is not a Bill that is giving all these powers on a permanent basis to a Secretary of State to rule the entire fuel economy with a rod of iron. However, as Conservative Members realised when they introduced their Act in 1973, it gave even greater powers. One must have these teeth to act quickly in various types of emergency situation.

Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman say a little about the actual trigger mechanism itself? Under the International Energy Agency in particular, what are the provisions that cover not so much a general embargo, such as we obviously experienced in 1973, as a selective embargo? Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient refinement of reaction concerning the trigger mechanism?

Mr. Oakes: It is difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman, not because I am trying to evade his question but because the circumstances of an emergency are difficult to define in advance. There may be a very varied series of things happening. It is difficult to say to the House that it would be triggered off internationally by A, B, C, D or E. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oswestry said that he would be a very foolish man who tried to predict what OPEC would do in the future as compared with what it did in 1973. That is perfectly true. For that reason, it is very difficult to give a definition, but there would be international action. Because of that action from the international authority, it would trigger oft in each member nation the introduction of the whole or part of the demand restraint and emergency measures which are contained in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill.
A matter of great interest has been the power of price control of oil products. I understand that if the Secretary of State wanted to use the powers under the 1973 Act he could control the prices of oil products now. He has the power to do so. It is not something peculiar to this country with a Socialist Secretary of State introducing the Bill in order to get his hands on the country's oil industry. Austria, France, and Italy all have the same powers.

Mr. Skeet: What about Germany?

Mr. Oakes: Germany is the exception, not the rule.

Mr. Rost: What about Sweden?

Mr. Oakes: I was talking about EEC countries. I was saying that almost all the EEC countries and many others as well already have these powers, and hardly any of them has a Social Democrat or Socialist Government. Spain and Portugal have these powers at present, and so does the United States of America. What we are asking for in the Bill is not a power which may be exercised by the Secretary of State as he pleases but the power to exercise it only when he needs to do so.
A number of hon. Members have talked about energy conservation. Opposition Members have claimed that price control of oil products is the antithesis of conservation because prices are kept down artificially. It is envisaged that


these powers would be used only if the Secretary of State needed to do so because of a state of shortage of fuel, oil and oil products. When hon. Members opposite complain about the conservation aspect here, I should point out to them that there is a difference between the economics of prudence and the economics of famine. It would be in circumstances of the economics of famine that this sort of thing would be brought in and there would be price control in this way. All we are doing is giving powers to the Secretary of State. Indeed, we are limiting his powers slightly. Therefore, I hope that this bogy, the idea that control of prices of oil products is a Socialist device by a Labour Government wanting to lead the country along the road to rampant Socialism, will be seen by hon. Members opposite in a little more perspective.

Mr. Macfarlane: Surely the hon. Gentleman can understand our feelings in view of the comments made by his right hon. Friend on 26th November 1973.

Mr. Oakes: Yes, he made those comments while welcoming a Bill which was being introduced by a Conservative Government. But whatever those comments may have been, this Bill in fact limits the powers which hon. Gentlemen opposite gave to the then Secretary of State in their Bill.

Mr. Skeet: That was an emergency.

Mr. Oakes: I come now to the main theme from hon. Members on all sides of the House—the question of energy conservation. This was mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I share the general concern that the report of the Select Committee came to my Department as long ago as September 1975. It is now June 1976. I have been at this Department for only a short time. I make no excuses, but I have tried to push this report very hard. There are difficulties since not only my Department is concerned. There are 42 recommendations in the report and nearly every Department of State is involved. When one has to deal with all the other Departments and get their observations on different aspects, it takes time. I shall try to use my best efforts to make certain that the report is printed and available before the Summer Recess. We have

no intention of avoiding a reply to the document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned the efforts of industry in energy conservation. In the "Save It" compaign we concentrated on domestic householders because space heating in domestic households is one of the ways in which a great deal of heat is wasted, and it is easier and cheaper to control this than it is to control wastage in industry. Industry often needs capital investment rather than just a simple solution like lagging a tank or insulating a roof. I have a major programme of energy conservation from now to the end of the year taking in all parts of the country.
On the question of energy audits, the firms which have employed such audits are amazed at the amount of energy and cash they have saved. In fact, the saving to the firms concerned is remarkable. Earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) told me that the Leeds City Council had decided to take a week off the Leeds schoolchildren's summer holidays and add a week to the Christmas holidays. The parents are reasonably happy about that because the long summer holiday can become tedious for them, if not for the children. The savings in fuel amount to £93,000. If one multiplies that by 100 other cities, one is talking about £9 million a year in fuel saved. That could go towards maintaining teachers who might otherwise be lost, at a time when local authorities are in difficulty.
Fuel economy and fuel conservation make good sense, apart from the impact they have on the fuel resources of the country, which are not unlimited. I endorse all that has been said about energy conservation. Many of the matters in the Bill were criticised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, who said that only two or three of them were directly related to conservation. If the hon. Member looks closely he will find that there are a lot more. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 re-enact the provisions of the 1973 Act which have an energy conservation base. Clause 11 on the fuelling of power stations is also concerned in this, as is Clause 12. So also are Clauses 8, 9 and 10, all of which have a conservation aspect. There is more to the Bill than perhaps the hon.
Member for Derbyshire, South-East sees. That is particularly so on the aspect of conservation.

Mr. Stainton: I apologise for having been absent from the debate, but I have been occupied in a Standing Committee on a Government Bill. I am particularly concerned about Clauses 8, 9 and 10 on gas with regard to the lack of proper safety specifications for refrigerated liquefied petroleum gas installations. This is a great deficiency which could have been rectified in the Bill and which must be pursued in Committee.

Mr. Oakes: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends will deal with that in Committee.
If I may return to conservation, perhaps I should explain that the Bill goes only part of the way. Conservation is more a matter of education than legislation, and that has been echoed in our approach. Nevertheless, there may be instances where legislation is necessary, hence some of the provisions in the Bill. There may be further provisions in other Bills after discussions have taken place with other Departments about heat insulation standards and so on. But we must get it right when we talk about heat insulation, because what we do now may have to stand for 100 years. We therefore do not want to be panicked into what seems to be a good idea only to find that difficulties arise in some other respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East asked what proportion of the requirements under EEC Directive 75/339 on the 30-day stocking of fossil fuel was currently held at the CEGB's power stations. I understand that the board's commercial practice is to hold stocks sufficient to meet 50 winter days' demand at the beginning of each October and to let these run down to 50 summer days' demand at the beginning of each April. Currently the board holds more stock than is required under this commercial practice. That means that it will be able more than adequately to meet, now and in the future, the demands of the EEC directive.
My hon. Friend asked whether natural gas was realistically priced. Generally, I would say that it is. The British Gas Corporation will be seeking price increases

in the autumn under the Price Commission procedure, but the increases will still leave natural gas very competitively priced, and the Government have no plans currently to disturb that arrangement by means of any special gas tax.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the Minister accepts that this is a point which is open to considerable argument.

Mr. Oakes: There could be considerable argument if one wanted to interfere with the mechanism by some form of tax to make gas less competitive with other fuels. There is another side to the argument. This concerns the counter-inflation policy and the effect that any unnatural increase in the price of fuel would have on that. There are no current plans in the Department to institute a special gas tax.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made an excellent contribution to the debate, although he was a bit unfair to some Government Departments. He said that we should do more. I am never complacent about Government Departments, either for the fuel saving they can effect themselves or for the good example they can set to others. It would be pointless for me or other Ministers to fulminate around the country in search of economy measures when Government Departments could be the worst offenders—although I can assure hon. Members that they are not the worst.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the excellent scheme instituted by the Property Services Agency by which, for a quite small investment, an enormous saving is effected year by year. The Ministry of Defence has an excellent record in this respect, as has the Department of Health and Social Security. All Departments are looking at this matter, and they will continue to do so. Very shortly a ministerial committee of junior Ministers will be set up under my chairmanship to look specifically at energy conservation as it affects particular Departments.
I agree that there is some dissention on Clause 8, but there is not all that much. The other place inserted what is now subsection (2), and we presently intend to take it out. There is a conflict between that subsection and subsection (6). The


idea behind the Government's proposal in the clause is not to have some fiendish hand at the throat of the petrochemical industry. That industry is using basic raw materials and fuels for other purposes, and, therefore, the fuel could be liquefied and used for another purpose with methanol and so on. One hon. Member read at length from a circular issued by the Department. Therefore the Department, for reasons no more sinister than that, wants the Secretary of State's consent to be given in all cases and it does not want that power to be qualified by the exclusion in subsection (2) as provided in the other place.
The hon. Member for Bedford raised the question of liquefaction, but in Committee we can talk together on this. I think that the matter must go further than methane and will probably have to go to ethane. The hon. Gentleman will see that I am putting the hand of friendship across the Chamber to him. It may be that ethane ought to be put with methane, but possibly not propane and butane. In Committee there may be many instances such as this on which there can be sensible agreement in this House just as there was in another place on many of the clauses.
There will be battles on Clause 3, which involves a fundamental difference of approach and principle between the

two sides, partly because of the Conservatives' suspicion about how the power may be used. I think it is an exaggeration to say that we in the Commons will undo all the agreement that was achieved in the House of Lords. We disagree with what the other place did on only two clauses, Clauses 3 and 8.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West wanted to know whether there would be a debate in the House about the fifth round proposals. The Secretary of State has it in mind to let hon. Members know when the discussion between the committee, the trade unions and industry has been completed. He thinks that that would be a suitable time at which Parliament might like to consider the matter.
I do not have time to cover all the other matters that were raised. Many were Committee points in any event. No doubt they will be hotly but, I hope, fairly debated in Committee. I hope that this useful measure will eventually go on to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill has been promoted by the Methodist Church in Great Britain and it has been agreed by the appropriate courts of that Church by overwhelming majorities. To show how that agreement within Methodism has been reached, and for the benefit, I hope, of those hon. Members who may not be so familiar with the structure of the Methodist Church, it may be helpful to give a brief explanation of the way in which the Church is organised in this country.
There are about 550,000 members in 8,600 local Methodist churches or societies. Those societies are grouped into 734 circuits, the size of a circuit varying from the exceptional one society forming a circuit by itself to possibly 50 or even more societies. It is the circuits that appoint and pay the full-time ministers serving the societies within the circuit. At the most recent count, there were 3,768 ministers throughout the country.
Each circuit has a governing body, known as the circuit meeting, which is composed of representatives from all the societies in the circuit, most of them on an ex officio basis because of particular offices that they hold within their own local societies. In turn, the circuits are grouped in 32 districts, the district being the Methodist equivalent of the diocese of the Church of England, although I hasten to point out that the geographical boundaries between the two sets of bodies in the two denominations bear hardly any correspondence.
The governing body of each Methodist district is the district synod, which meets twice a year, in May and September. The synod is composed of all the ministers serving within the district and an approximately equal number of lay men and women elected directly by the circuit meetings, plus a number of ex officio lay officials and representatives of district committees. The membership of synod will vary from district to district, but

it is nearly always more than 100 and may even be in excess of 500.
Because all the full-time ministers are members of synod and are duty-bound to attend synod, every society within Methodism has a direct link with its own synod. Therefore, there is a channel of communication by which every member of the Church can become aware of the business before synod.
Above the district synods, the national governing body of the Methodist Church is the annual conference, of which there are two sessions, one ministerial and the other representative, composed of almost equal numbers of ministers and lay people. For purposes such as the House is discussing tonight the key session of conference is the representative session, which has 670 members, of whom nearly 500 are directly elected each year by the district synods.
So one has the picture of a hierarchical structure, perhaps, but one in which there is direct representation from the lowest level of organisation to the conference. Although this whole structure may not satisfy the democratic purists, no one can deny that it enables the opinions of Methodists throughout the country to be expressed in all the courts of the Church. I can recall numerous instances in the Methodist conference of a president going out of his way to enable individual view-points to be heard, sometimes with great embarrassment but always with tolerance and understanding.
The standing orders of the Methodist Church lay down a specific procedure to be observed whenever a parliamentary Bill is to be promoted. That procedure has been observed meticulously in respect of the Bill at present before the House. At the Methodist Conference of 1974, a draft of the Bill was approved by a 99 per cent. majority—well in excess of the required three-quarters. Then, following standing orders, the Bill was submitted to all the 32 district synods, of which only one expressed any reservation about it, and that was only in respect of a single clause. Then the Bill came back again to the conference the following year, 1975, and was again approved by a 99 per cent. majority. It is remarkable that one of the petitions submitted to this House in opposition to the Bill is signed by 6,000 members and


adherents of Methodist societies representing possibly 1 per cent. of the total membership of the Church and, therefore, in proportion to the minority viewpoint expressed in the conference.
Before I explain the main provisions of the Bill, it may also be useful if I remind the House of the main historical developments that brought present-day Methodism into being as we know it.
Methodism was founded, perhaps accidentally, by John Wesley, who died in 1791. In the 60 years or so following his death, there were a number of secessions from the main body of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. In 1796, the Independent Methodist Church broke away and has remained apart ever since. In the following years, there were successive secessions by the Methodist New Connexion, the Primitive Methodists, the Bible Methodists, the Protestant Methodists, the Armenian Methodist Connexion, the Wesleyan Methodist Association, and the Wesleyan Reformers. Of those, the Primitive Methodists were the only ones to retain an independent separate existence right up to 1932. Over the intervening years, all the others either grouped themselves together, mainly in the United Free Churches, or were left as an off-shoot called the Wesleyan Reform Union, which separated from the Wesleyan Reformers in 1859 and which again has been completely separate and independent to this day.
In 1929, the three main strands of the Methodist Church existing at that time—the Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodists and the United Methodists together promoted a parliamentary bill—the Methodist Church Union Bill—which was enacted and which led to Methodist union in 1932. I emphasise that the Independent Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Reform Union were completely outside that union and have maintained their separate existence ever since. There is no intention on the part of the promoters that those separate organisations should in any way be affected by the Bill.
The union of 1932 was brought about by the Methodist Church Union Act 1929, and it is the content of that Act which ensures that the main purposes of this Bill can be pursued only by further parliamentary legislation. Indeed, the Bill

provides for the repeal of the 1929 Act, although some provisions would be reenacted in the Bill.
One difficulty that arises from the 1929 Act is that Section 8 (2) denies the Methodist Church any power to vary the doctrinal standards of the Church as expressed in a deed of union made by the first conference of the Methodist Church in 1932. This provision for the doctrinal standards of the Church to be entrenched was considered necessary at the time in order to combine the three strands within the new United Church to safeguard against the danger of withdrawal of membership in the early days. But the curious effect of Section 8 (2) is that the only way in which the Methodist Church today, 44 years later, can make any alteration to its own doctrinal standards is by further parliamentary legislation.
I fully recognise that the House is very jealous of its rights and powers, but it seems anomalous that Members of Parliament, several of whom are today sincerely apathetic, if not antipathetic, towards the Christian religion, should retain power in respect of the doctrinal standards of what is, after all, a nonconformist Church. One of the main purposes of the Bill, as expressed in Clause 5, is to give the Methodist Church freedom in respect of its own doctrinal standards, and to subject it to no further parliamentary restriction.
The position of the Methodist Church today is very different from that in 1929. Methodist union is an accomplished historic fact. Indeed, it took place eight years before I was born. The present generation of Methodists look to the future in this rapidly-changing world with awareness that doctrinal standards may from time to time need to be brought up to date. It is not that there are any proposals before conference to amend or refine the doctrinal standards, although the promoters would not seek in any way to hide the fact that there may well be need for such amendment in the years to come.
At this point I draw attention to the special safeguards referred to in Clause 5(2). That provides for a deferred special resolution procedure, which means that in dealing with any alteration to the doctrinal standards the conference will need a 75 per cent. majority of those present and voting, and such alteration


will need to be approved by the same majority two years later before any amendment to the doctrinal standards can become effective.
As will be seen by the definition of the "deferred special resolution" in Clause 2(1), "appropriate consultation" which is also defined in that clause, must take place during the two-year interval between the passing of the resolutions. Already, in preparation for the enactment of the Bill, the conference has been preparing standing orders to prescribe the appropriate consultation. It will mean that any proposal to alter the doctrinal standards will have to be submitted for approval not only to the synods of the 32 districts of the Methodist Church but to the overseas districts and to the circuit meetings of all the 734 circuits of the Methodist Church. The House will see that any proposed amendment to the doctrinal standards of the Methodist Church would involve the widest consultation, not only in this country but overseas, in many parts of the world.
Another of the most important provisions of the Bill is contained, appropriately, in Clause 4, which, for the first time in any legislation, defines the purposes of the Methodist Church. Clause 4(a) declares that the primary purpose of the Methodist Church is the advancement of
The Christian faith in accordance with the doctrinal standards and the discipline of the Methodist Church".
It further declares, in subsection (c) that the purpose of the Church includes
any charitable purpose for the time being of any society or institution being a society or institution subsidiary or ancillary to the Methodist Church".
Clause 4 (d) further provides that the purpose of the Church includes
any purpose for the time being of any charity being a charity subsidiary or ancillary to the Methodist Church.
The significance of the clause is increased when one reads it in conjunction with paragraph 12 of Schedule 2, which declares that all property that is to be held upon the model trusts, as defined in the Bill, shall be held upon such trusts if and so far only as the execution of these trusts shall be in furtherance of or incidental to one of the purposes of the Church.
The broad terms of Clause 4, in conjunction with Schedule 2, will remove doubts concerning the user of model trust property and the purposes for which the proceeds of sale of any such property can be applied. It will give Methodists a wide latitude and flexibility in deploying their assets in such a manner as might be considered appropriate for the purposes of the Church.
Under the Bill, the managing trustees of model trust property would be able to change the use of, for instance, a church hall to become a child welfare centre, provided that the new use was covered, in accordance with the purposes of the Methodist Church as defined in Clause 4. The provisions will enable the Methodist Church to act more flexibly.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I am a member of the Church of England. A Methodist chapel is being voluntarily built in my constituency. Those concerned can see the control of the chapel being taken away and the power of the local trustees being taken and vested in the hierachy. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) explain that for me?

Dr. Marshall: I am aware of the chapel to which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) refers, but I am not familiar with its legal situation. Only when one has full knowledge of the local deeds of the property can one come to any conclusions. My hon. Friend's concern is widely shared in many Methodist chapels. It is a concern that I recognise, and that I believe the promoters of the Bill recognise. I hope to be able to deal with this concern in such a way as to show that much of it is inappropriate and misplaced.
The third main purpose of the Bill is to provide for a new system—the system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton referred—of vesting the legal ownership of all Methodist property held at present under the deeds listed in Part I of Schedule 1. The first part of the answer to my hon. Friend's question is to find out whether the chapel to which he refers has such a deed.
Each of the 8,600 Methodist churches in the country has its own trust body, which holds the building in trust for the


whole Methodist connection and ensures that the property is used in accordance with the trusts upon which it is held. It also keeps the building in good order and repair. In short, the local trust is responsible for the fabric and the proper use of the local church building.
At the same time, alongside the trust, each church has a church council, with especially important duties, exercising the pastoral oversight of the local society, arranging for services of worship and other church activities, and generally filling a rôle similar to that of the parish church council of the Church of England. Each Methodist society has a church council and a trust—two distinct bodies, usually but not always with overlapping membership but with quite distinct functions.
The membership of the church council is easily and frequently changed with the passage of time, but under the present law the trustees can continue as members of the local trust even though they may have ceased to be members of the local society to which the trust relates. They still have to be members of the Methodist Church somewhere in the country, but they do not need to be associated with the local church.
On occasions, trustees have grown out of touch with the needs of the local church and the local community. Sometimes they have become out of harmony with the active members of the local church. I know from experience in some of the Methodist churches with which I have been associated that it is a complex legal operation to reconstitute the trust of a local Methodist church.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The whole point of a trust is that the trustees should observe the terms of the trust. If they fail to do so there is a perfectly good legal remedy. The Bill attempts to take away the rights of the trustees under the trustee deed by which they operate.

Dr. Marshall: No, that is not correct. Under the Bill, although there will be a move to transfer the legal vesting of the trust to a central body to serve as a custodial trusteeship, the management of the trust at local level will be transferred to the church council—the other body that I have described. That gives a

much greater degree of local involvement in all the matters relating to the Church. The reason why the Methodist Church wants to make this change at this time is precisely to end the sometimes awkward diarchical system that I have just described.
Over the last 10 years there have been wide consultations at district and circuit levels of the Methodist Church, and each year the reports of working parties have been approved by conference in trying to find a solution to this overall problem. As long ago as 1969 the proposals for central vesting were approved by conference. In 1973, following consideration and approval of the proposals by the districts, conference unanimously approved changes in the structure of the organisation and government of the Methodist Church including an alteration so as to confer upon the local church council authority and oversight over the whole area of the ministry of the local church, including, on the passing of this Bill, the management of the local property. Subject, therefore, to the necessary consent of Parliament, the conference desires to shift responsibility for the management of model deed property from the existing trustees to the church council. Each church council comprises a large number of individuals appointed annually by the church members.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman referred to approval for this part of the scheme having been given at district level, but is it not the case, in the instance of the Anglican and Methodists conversations for church union, that the conversations were extended right down to circuit level? That has not been the case in the matter that is the subject of the present Bill. This is a subject of great anxiety amongst Methodists. Would the hon. Gentleman at some convenient moment, care to explain why that is so?

Dr. Marshall: The answer is that under the standing orders of the Methodist Church, proposals to promote legislation in Parliament are required to be discussed only by the conference and the synod. There is no requirement for the proposal also to go to the circuits. The reason why that procedure was extended in the case of the Anglican/Methodist conversations of 1969 was that that issue


was felt to be of much more importance to the whole life of Methodism than even the provisions in this Bill. Anglican/Methodist union would have altered the existence of the Methodist Church beyond all recognition for ever. It was of momentous importance, far beyond the importance of provisions of a Bill such as the one now before us.
However, there was nothing to stop individual members of conference or synod making an effort to discover the views of the people in their localities within the Methodist Church in respect of this Bill. If there is any complaint that people in local churches have not been consulted, the responsibility must rest partly with themselves, in that they have not taken the trouble to keep in touch with their circuit and synod representatives, and partly also with their synod representatives who have failed to report back to them on the business before the synod.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the average Methodist chapel likely to have a synod representative of its own whom the congregation could meet on a Sunday? Is that the impression that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to give?

Dr. Marshall: I am certainly seeking to give the impression that every member of the Methodist Church has easy access to a member of synod, namely, his own minister, because every minister is duty-bound to attend synod and every member of the Methodist Church is under the pastoral care of a minister of the Church. Therefore, I answer the hon. Gentleman's question clearly in the affirmative.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Does a non-Methodist also correctly understand that it is open to a member of the circuit, or groups who are members of the circuit, to address a memorial to the district synod, and thereby to have a direct access to the synod, so that they can make representations—as, indeed, has happened—in that way?

Dr. Marshall: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that every Methodist circuit has the right of addressing a memorial not only to synod but to the conference of the

Methodist Church on any subject relating to the business of the Methodist Church. Over the last few years circuits have done this in relation to this issue. They have been able to make their views known in that way, and have also received the replies of conference to those memorials.
Similarly, the synods, although they are in a position of being able to discuss this item on their agendas, are able to send what are called suggestions to the annual conference of the Methodist Church.
I am also reminded of the fact that every Methodist minister, with the approval of his district synod, may seek to attend and be heard by the whole ministerial session of the annual conference. That also would give him or her an opportunity of raising any doubts about the Bill before us.
I shall curtail my remarks in the hope that some of my hon. Friends will be able to fill in the gaps in the argument, but I wish to make reference to the petitions lodged in respect of the Bill.
The petitions, as I understand it, come from two particular local societies, which have properties under Deeds 5 and 6 respectively in the list given in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill. In both these cases the local congregation has been, at least, for the last 10 years, separate from the membership of the Methodist Church as a whole.
I understand that they each wish to remain independent of the Methodist Conference. If their properties are to be vested centrally, as would occur under the intentions of the Bill, in theory it would be possible for the Methodist Conference to establish new bodies to manage the buildings of these churches. If the dreadful situation arose in which the future of the buildings was in question, the conference, by this Bill, would have power to dispose of the properties.
I believe that it would be contrary to the spirit of Methodism for action to be taken in such a dictatorial form by conference, and I can understand the concern of these two local congregations. I know that a similar petition was brought against the Bill in another place, as a result of which it was amended by an addition to paragraph 23 of Schedule 2, which would enable these properties to be sold to the local congregations.
If the petitioners are not satisfied by that amendment, they have every right to be heard further by a Committee of this House. That is the whole purpose of the private legislative procedures. But I do not understand why these petitioners should wish to block the passage of the Bill for the Methodist Church when the Bill has the full support of the main body of Methodism throughout the country. We may be jealous of the rights of small minorities, but we must never allow the situation to develop in which the tiny minority can decide issues for the vast majority.
I conclude on a personal note. For 20 years I have been in full membership of the Methodist Church, in which earlier I had grown up under the influence of my Methodist parents. During those 20 years I have belonged to five local Methodist societies, scattered around the country, widely differing in size, characteristics and local activities. On occasions I have served as a member of the synod in varying districts from Lincolnshire to Merseyside and from the London area to Leeds, where I now live.
I know the Methodist Church to be rich in diversity and to be strong in local character and colour. Methodists meet together in the spirit of fellowship at all levels of organisations. There is an atmosphere in the synod and at conference which I have found in no other organisation. Given a true truly Christian spirit and a spirit of toleration and understanding, I can see nothing in the whole of this Bill which does not redound to the benefit of all in the Methodist Church. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that Mr. Speaker has selected for debate the proposed Instruction on the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and certain other hon. Gentlemen—namely,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to ascertain to what extent the trustees of property held upon the trust of the deeds referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill have been informed of and consented to the provisions in the Bill relating to property held by or vested in those trustees and to exclude any such property from those provisions unless the trustees concerned consent to those provisions.

I remind the House that, following the business motion to which the House agreed at 3.30 this afternoon, a total of three hours is available for the two parts of the debate. We shall first take the Second Reading debate, which has now begun. Then, if the Bill is read a Second time, we shall debate the Instruction.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) for the painstaking and careful way in which he introduced the Bill to the House and for the way in which he dealt with its clauses. Even though I may dissent from some of his conclusions, I shall not depart from that judgment. The hon. Gentleman was a great help to the House.
When Private Bills of this kind come before the House, we have to apply certain tests as part of our responsibility. As I see them, the tests are three in number. The first is whether a Bill is needed, the second is whether it is fair and the third is whether it is based on the widest possible consultation and agreement with the various interests affected. Those are the tests which the House must apply to private legislation, from whatever source it comes.
I have an interest in the Bill since, like many others present tonight, I am a Methodist and, indeed, I am a local preacher. I am not a trustee, and I have not the special interest in the Bill of those who may be discharged from responsibility under one part of the Bill. The Bill is important for those of us who have a direct interest in the work of the Methodist Church in carrying out the work of God. Therefore, we must judge the measure on the ground of whatever it will advance that cause. That, however, is not the test that the House should apply to private legislation. That test must be based on fairness and the degree of consultation with the interests affected. Therefore, we must look at the various aspects of the Bill in the light of that test.
I wish to look first at the subject of doctrine. The doctrine of the Methodist Church is protected by Parliament. It was not chosen by Parliament, it was not determined by Parliament and it was not worked out by Parliament. Nobody


would ever ask Parliament to be the arbiter or the assessor of the doctrine of the Methodist Church. That would be an absurd proposition. The only church whose doctrine this Parliament has ever sought to be concerned about—it has now divested itself of much of that concern—is the established Church.
It would be quite absurd for Parliament to be the body which worked out or even adjudicated on the value or the validity of Methodist doctrine. That was not the task which Methodism asked Parliament to undertake in 1929 in preparation for the union of 1932. What Parliament did was to entrench an agreement made between the three parties who joined into a united Church. It ensured by entrenchment that the agreement could not be changed. The doctrine on which the agreement was based was without further recourse to Parliament.
I do not necessarily think that the doctrinal formulation that the Methodists chose at that date was the best that was possible. I do not think that it is ideal for all time and not suspectible to change or alteration. However, I see no reason or need for the conference to be removed from the safeguard of having to go to Parliament before changing the agreement or from the safeguard of having to use a very special procedure to ensure that the various people who regard themselves as successors to the parties to the agreement have an opportunity of presenting their views and interests before Parliament.
If they were to do that, I emphasise that it would not be for Parliament to judge the theological validity or standing of the views before it. It is the job of Parliament to satisfy itself that the various parties to the agreement have been fairly treated and that the power of the majority has not subsequently been used to overturn the position of any minority party to the agreement.
The promoters of the Bill say that they have no wish to change the doctrine—at the moment, at any rate. There is no intention or proposal before the conference to change the doctrine. If we accept the clear statement that the promoters have made, why is the doctrinal clause necessary? Why should it be brought before us?
There is a danger of confusing these proceedings with those engaged in by a similarly attentive House some months ago over the position of the Church of England. Parliament changed the relationship of the established Church with Parliament in a significant way. Some hon. Members were in favour of that and some were not. Some hon. Members now in the Chamber took an active part in that debate. That was an entirely different proceeding. It had nothing to do with the issues now facing us. On that occasion Parliament was divesting itself of the power to determine doctrine and worship in the Church of England.
Should we continue to safeguard the kind of agreement which was arrived at by the parties to the Methodist Union? If Parliament does not safeguard that, the way is opened to certain rather serious risks, such as going back on the guarantees that were given between 1929 to 1932 without testing the need and without testing the way in which the decision had been reached. That does not give very much hope or encouragement to the schemes of union which may now be being considered between the Churches, and there are many such schemes under discussion. One has gone through from the United Reform Church and there may be others. We are likely to have such agreements again.
It will be necessary for parties who arrive at agreement between different Churches to sink their many differences and to arrive at a formula and compromise which each side is confident will be respected. This may involve large and small groups joining together. The procedure is common to Parliament not only in religious denominations but in other areas—namely, to safeguard proceedings when they involve property by the way it turns on private legislation.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Gentleman asked what I thought was a serious question, although it may have been merely rhetorical. He said that Parliament should have no part in deciding the doctrine of the Methodist Church although we should have a place in deciding the safeguards relating to how that doctrine was decided. Does he agree that at present Parliament has a veto on deciding the doctrines of the Methodist Church and


that the Bill, right or wrong, would remove the veto? In fact, I happen to agree with the Bill. We can use the words "veto" or "safeguard", the latter being the hon. Gentleman's word.

Mr. Beith: As an exchange of words, we could make "safeguard" into "veto". This House would not contemplate arguing about the doctrine of the Methodist Church if it were confronted with a situation in which the Methodist Church changed its doctrine. The debate we are now having, if it were opposed on the Floor of the House, would be concerned with the necessary tests to be conducted and the procedures to be followed to ensure that the widest possible support existed and that it did not represent only the wishes of one section of the parties concerned. I do not see why we should be asked to answer the question in the abstract when confronted with a situation in which the doctrine is proposed to be changed.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am following the speech of the hon. Gentleman very closely. He will remember that some of us were closely associated with a similar operation relating to the Church of England. If there were to be an application for a change in the doctrine of the Methodist Church under the law as it now is, would not this House be bound to debate that change of doctrine? Would it not find itself being the judge of Methodist doctrine? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is satisfactory in 1976?

Mr. Beith: The question would not be the theological question whether a particular doctrine was sound, but the question whether the views of the Methodists and the various parties to the agreement had been ascertained and were fairly reflected in the decision that was taken. That was not the position with the Church of England. That was a different question. The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a difference.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Would the House have any say in whether the theology was right or wrong? What would be the machinery? Would there have to be another Bill, a Statutory Instrument or an Adjournment debate? How could it happen? Why

does the hon. Gentleman, as a lay preacher, contend that he has more confidence in this House than in the conference to respect the views of Church members?

Mr. Beith: I shall come to the conference later. It would have to be a Bill. It would be by legislative proceedings. No reason has been advanced why it should be done in any other way, except the strange analogy with the proceedings in the Church of England.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: As I understand the position, if the Methodist Church wished to change its doctrinal basis a Bill would have to be presented to this House. A Bill is capable of amendment by this House, but if a measure comes to this House from the Synod of the Church of England we cannot amend it. We either accept or reject it in toto.

Mr. Beith: The procedure which would be used on any subsequent occasion would be to put the doctrinal standards not into the Bill but into a document referred to in the Bill. The House made no attempt in 1929 to change the doctrine or to modify the agreement which was reached. It gave an entrenchment to the agreement that was reached. That was contained in the deed of union. It was not amended or capable of amendment by the House. Parliament entrenched that document. In that sense, the House is in the same position as with a worship and doctrine measure. There is no question of amending or changing it.
The principle involved is significant. The doctrinal standards in the deed of union must be seen in the context of the connectional structure of Methodism, which is a fairly authoritarian structure in some respects. It differs markedly from the Congregational type of church government. If the doctrine is changed, severe consequences follow for those who might dissent from any change. Some objectors fear that a different group might be affected. It would depend on the change that was envisaged. We do not know what groups would be involved.
The point at issue concerns not only the internal procedures of the Methodist Church but the model deed. A new version of the model deed is contained in


Schedule 1. Paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 2 provides:
Subject to the foregoing sub-paragraph and to any provision of the Act of 1969 or of any sharing agreement made thereunder affecting the property or any part thereof, the managing trustees shall not permit any person, at any service or meeting for religious worship held at or in any part of any premises comprised in the property, so to preach or expound God's Holy Word or perform any act as to deny or repudiate the doctrinal standards.
The importance of that is that anyone who obtains his or her livelihood as a minister or a deaconess in the Methodist Church could be placed in the position, if the doctrine were changed, of being deprived of that livelihood and any opportunity to preach in Methodist pulpits. The conference did not enter upon that matter lightly. However, it has the power to preclude from its pulpits and its ministry those who dissent from the doctrines. If one changes the doctrines, one risks putting people in that position. It is not unreasonable that there should be safeguards for people who are at risk of being placed in that position. The three Methodist movements wisely had that consequence in mind when they entrenched that provision.
It is difficult to see that it is fair and reasonable to take the risks involved as regards livelihood and the effect on those who preach and obtain their living and ministers and deaconesses of a change of doctrine without a clear safeguard for their own position and future. That is one of the areas in which the House must be satisfied that there is fairness and reasonableness.
There is a special case, to which the promoters of the Bill have referred elsewhere, in regard to the position of those from other denominations who are invited now to preach in Methodist pulpits. I have great sympathy with the objectives of the promoters in trying to ensure that Methodism does not get itself into a legality where it invites ministers from other denominations to occupy its pulpits. One of the reasons advanced for a change in the doctrinal clause is that it applies too harsh a limitation on the invitations to ministers of other denominations to preach in Methodist pulpits. However, that difficulty does not derive from the doctrinal standards themselves and would not necessarily be solved if

one changed the standards, because however one changed them one would be likely to leave some denomination or group with which one wished to continue to exchange preachers from time to time which might not be covered by it. The way of dealing with that problem is by amendment of the model deeds themselves. The promoters have used this device and seem to be trying to have a double method of achieving it. The change in the doctrinal clause cannot be justified on those grounds.
The second area in which the House must apply the tests of fairness and reasonableness is in relation to local trustees, their discharge from present responsibilities and their replacement. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Goole. Problems arise in the relations between trusts and those who run local churches and societies and who now organise them in church councils. Situations can arise where a gulf opens up between the trust and what we used to call the society, the active church members. It should not do so, because any sensible society should make sure that its members are among the trustees, but it has happened and does happen.
I understand the desire of the promoters to ensure that the local trustee responsibility and local management of the Church's affairs are as closely bound together as possible. Not only am I unhappy, but many others are unhappy that central custodian trustees should be the device used to achieve this purpose. I believe that it would be much better if we could have an established procedure by which we kept membership of trusts closely aligned to local churches rather than become involved in a process of centralisation.
The difficulty is felt at its keenest where this is associated with the awkward occasion that arises when a society or local church feels for some reason or other that it must leave the Methodist connection or when it finds that the Methodist connection no longer wants it and wishes to declare it redundant. In those cases, the existence of a central instrument of power and responsibility causes those who fear this situation to be very worried about central custodian trustees.
Their Lordships tried to deal with the case which could arise when a society had to leave the Methodist Church be-


cause it was declared redundant. An amendment was introduced into the Bill, but the difficulty about that is that it may be defective in drafting. This is a Committee matter for later, but it depends on the whole redundancy procedure being followed through to the end. As the hon. Member for Goole knows, that often has not happened. At the end of the day the unfortunate members have found their church closed over their heads.
They have one small benefit if the whole procedure is correctly followed. They have the privilege of being able to buy back on the open market the chapel which their forefathers built and to which they have devoted their life's efforts. In some cases they may not be able to afford to buy it back, but in other cases they may be fortunate because it may be on the market at a low price.
There is an additional problem. There is no intention to embrace the various chapels which have nothing to do with the Methodist Church but belong to the Western Reform Union or other separate or breakaway Methodist groups, some of which are very small, or even limited to one chapel only. The difficulty arises because the list of trustees in the schedule goes a long way back and can embrace chapels which have never had anything to do with the Methodist Church at all.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Has the hon. Member any evidence that any one of those in the Western Reform Union or these independent Methodist chapels has a deed included in it?

Mr. Beith: Quite a number of bodies, and certainly the Western Reform Union, are very doubtful about indicating on which deeds their chapels are, because they are uncertain of the consequences of such legislation. It is incumbent on the promoters of the Bill to bring before us a schedule to embrace these chapels and the deeds they have lost. The promoters cannot except Back-Bench Members of this House to pursue through the safes of the United Kingdom the deeds of all the chapels involved. The areas of risk are well enough known for the promoters to draft the Bill in such a way as to safeguard them. This is why the Instruction has been tabled, and even those who are enthusiastic about the Bill should ensure that the promoters ascertain

whether they are not sweeping into the Bill people who do not want to be any part of it.
A third area on which the House must ask questions is whether those affected have been consulted adequately. Are the promoters satisfied that consultations have taken place? It is simply not good enough to say that the synods have seen copies of the Bill. It has been widely claimed at synods at which the Bill was available that copies of it were taken away and were not available to take back on to the circuits to local churches. The fact that ministers are synod members does not necessarily mean that this is an effective method of communication. My chapel shares its minister with eight others. When the minister is not there, services are conducted by local preachers. On his quarterly visit, the minister can hardly be expected to take part in the kind of discussions described. Many people did not become aware of the Bill until a fairly late stage in the procedures.
Methodism is a connectional movement. It has always been influenced by both connections and by congregational traditions and attitudes. It seems that the rôle of local societies in seeing that their needs are met by representation at synod level is unfair to the Methodist tradition. I do not think that the hon. Member for Goole can reasonably suggest that the vote in conference represents the potential result of the same referendum among Methodist people. Of course, the conference produced an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member will recognise that if one took a poll among societies or Methodist members they would divide in the same proportion.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that Methodist churches had the opportunity to put before the conference memorials indicating their view. Even in spite of the lack of early information at that level about the Bill, many societies and circuits did precisely that. Quite a number of memorials came before the 1975 conference deploring the lack of information about the Bill. One was from the Hoylake and West Kirby circuit, and the Birmingham Mission circuit urged a withdrawal of the Bill. From the Redruth circuit came criticisms, and doubt about the Bill were raised by the Bolton and Rochdale


synod. The Bolton meeting, with 100 people present, voting by 82 to 17, came down against the Bill. Other representations include those from Bury and Heywood, Bridlington and the Forest of Dean.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member said that many people were not aware of the Bill, and now he says that circuits that were not consulted have been making representations. How does he square those two statements?

Mr. Beith: I have said that knowledge of the detailed provisions of the Bill was not available at local church level, but in a very large number of circuits people did what the hon. Member for Goole said they should—they went to great pains to find out more about the Bill. Now that a great deal more is known about it, there are memorials on the agenda to the conference for 1976—a conference which has not yet met—requesting that the Bill should be substantially changed, withdrawn or not acted upon. The Birmingham Central Mission is responsible for one of the memorials and others come from Romsey, the Brigg circuit, and Southport. The circuit at Worksop deplores the fact that in March 1975 the circuits were not given access to, and therefore could not discuss the contents of, the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Is the hon. Member aware that the Huddersfield Methodist Church has said that it is in favour of the Bill? Would the hon. Member care to comment on that?

Mr. Beith: He is a wise Member of Parliament who takes the trouble to ascertain the views held locally. There are differences of view among a great many people who favour the Bill. We are discussing tonight whether adequate consultation took place, whether the Bill should proceed and whether the different views involved have been adequately met. The hon. Member for Goole sought to give the impression that the most inconsequential group of people was opposed to the Bill I do not think that the circuits I have referred to can be put into that category.
Even if there were a large and clear majority of every circuit throughout

Methodism in favour of the Bill, there would still be a large minority opposed to it and it would be the duty of this House to take notice of that opposition. The circuits which I have quoted have indicated in their memorials that there is a wider degree of dissatisfaction and concern at the proposal than had been thought hitherto.
The conference made replies to those memorials and said the kind of thing that the hon. Member for Goole has said. It recommended that the Bill should be dealt with in accordance with our long-established procedures for dealing with all items of legislation. Frankly, the circuits concerned did not share that view and were unhappy about it. It gives me no pleasure to make criticisms of a measure brought forward by people I respect in the Church to which I belong.
Whether Methodist or not, however, I would be failing in my duty as a Member of Parliament if I did not express concern at the sort of issues I have raised. I would have been much happier if substantial agreement could have been reached to avoid this spattering of the conference agenda with genuine, deep-seated misgivings from circuits in all parts of the country. It behoves hon. Members to acknowledge the existence of these feelings and to be accommodating towards them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out, after the two reasonably long speeches that we have just heard, that if the Instruction is not reached before the end of the three hours allotted for this debate, the House will not have the opportunity—it may not wish to have the opportunity, of course—to vote on the Instruction. If the Second Reading debate lasts for three hours, I shall not be able to call the Instruction.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I claim no special qualifications for intervening in this important debate, but, like the two previous speakers, for my sins, I am a member of the Methodist Church.

Mr. Speaker: I know that I am impartial, but that would not be for one's sins surely.

Mr. Lewis: I was going to say that if I am spared until August of this year I shall have completed 45 years as a Methodist local preacher. I look back on those 45 years with great pleasure.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) quoted certain circuits. I have not received one letter from my constituency, yet he quoted my circuit, the Worksop circuit. I want to be fair to my superintendent minister there. It was only when he arrived on the scene last September, I understand, that this question was stirred up there. Even now, some of the ministers in that circuit are supporting this measure, as proposed by conference.
There are two contentious issues—the dissolution of the local trusteeship and the withdrawing of the unalterability clause relating to doctoring. My own humble thought is that the affairs of the Methodist Church should be in the hands of those who for the time being comprise that Church and who are reacting to its needs and those of the time. Applying that reasoning to doctoring rules out any clause made at one time, in this case back in the 1930s, which seeks to fix matters for all time.
There is however a personal view which to me is satisfying as a principle but which ignores the reasons for the unalterability clause in the deed of union going back to 1930. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) that it is still relevant to recall the clause, which arises from the deed of union, the document which set out the terms of the union of the three United Churches—the Wesleyans, the Primitives and the United Methodists. After all these years, we are not now uniting three previously separate Churches, as they were in the 1930s.
According to one eye witness, the clause sought to placate the hard liners of the Wesleyan pastoral ministerial session who wanted to guard against eroding the status of ministers, particularly superintendent ministers, while the hard liners of the Primitives and the United Methodists wanted to guard against any enhancing of the status or function of the ministry and corresponding erosion of lay authority and responsibility.
That conflict is understandable in the context of the discussions in 1928–32,

because for years the only thing that kept the uniting churches apart was the question of ministerial-lay authority and responsibility.
Therefore, in my view the clause functioned as a means to an end. It was a mechanism to assist the uniting of three previously separate Methodist Churches, and that is important. But this most certainly is not the issue now. Therefore, this reason for such a clause no longer applies, in my humble opinion.
Is there any virtue, in 1976, in maintaining an anachronism, therefore? I appreciate that there are those who see the clause as a safeguard against changes of which they fear they may disapprove. However, having said that I think that to shelter behind the clause and to decline to argue a case is somewhat immoral. If the real concern of those who wish to maintain the clause is to safeguard the future from hasty or immoderate change, surely the way forward is to devise a procedure within the Church to ensure that no change can take place without full discussion and a substantial majority being in favour of it.
On this point, the current proposals seem to me to be satisfactory. However, if they are not judged to be satisfactory, surely it is the proposals that require amendment. Nothing needs to be stopped by the blunt instrument of the unalterability clause. What is more, I see no reason why the legislative and secular authority of this House should be the guardian of matters theological. I think that the Methodist Church should be free from parliamentary encumbrance. As I understand it, that is what this measure seeks to do.
My thoughts on the proposals to dissolve the local trusteeship and to vest all Methodist property in a central body of trustees acting for the Connexion seems to be reasonable. Again, I hold the view that the current affairs of the Church should be in the hands of those who are the Church for the time being, and that applies to the local church as well as to the Connexion as a whole.
I know that a number of Methodist ministers, after their attendance at the synods, have referred the proposed change to every trustees' meeting that they have attended, and have done that as their churches' representatives to the


synods. If some ministers did not do so, I suggest that they were abdicating some of their duties. But a number of ministers have told me that they raised this question at meetings of their local trustees time and time again when it was first mooted several years ago. As far as I have been able to ascertain from the various ministers to whom I have spoken, there were very few exceptions at the time that they raised the matter and made their report on this measure, especially when it was realised that all but the legal responsibility was being transferred to the church council.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: We all applaud the spirit in which certain ministers spoke to the bodies of trustees to which they were responsible. Although these have not been quantified or specified, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in doing that ministers were under an instruction from the conference? In other words, was there a rule that all ministers should tell the trustees of their churches?

Mr. Lewis: I am saying that a minister who goes to synod is under an obligation to report back to his trustees' meeting what happens at the synod. If ministers did not do that, some of them probably erred and strayed in that regard.
Only the legal responsibility was being transferred to a central body. This seems relevant, because it is the legal responsibility that local folk have shied away from when asked to become trustees.
Another relevant issue is the absent trustee. The older a trust is, the more likely it is that its members will be dispersed and therefore lose touch with local matters. They consequently become less willing to act, even if they go to meetings. This situation is no help to the local church. On this practical issue, I welcome the proposed change, because it keeps the responsibility local, where it should be, and maintains an elected body. I regard that as a real improvement.
I appreciate that some regard the proposed change with fear, thinking that the Trust for Methodist Church Purposes can now close our chapels, but as that cannot happen without the agreement of the church council, circuit meeting, district synod and conference, I do not see any

closures resulting from the proposed change. We shall watch with great interest, but I do not foresee the Trustees for the Methodist Church Purposes initiating any closure. There would be too many ready to say "This is just what we feared."
I am content with this move, because it draws attention to the connectional form of Methodism as distinct from the congregational form. That is good for the Methodist Church.
Bearing in mind that we have a membership of about 600,000 in the great Church and that only about 8,000 have so far petitioned against this, I hope that the House will give its full support to the elected body of the Methodist Church, the Methodist Conference.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I shall remember your appeal for brevity Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). He and I had the pleasure of living in the same village for a number of years. I know that he and his family are great pillars of the Methodist Church in that village in North Somerset.
I think that I am the first Anglican to speak in the debate. I support the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) made a persuasive case for allowing the Bill to go to Committee, where the details can be considered.
I have three general propositions, which I find useful guidelines in approaching Church matters. The first is that I am a firm believer in retaining an established Church in this country. It symbolises the link between the Church and the State, between the spiritual and temporal and is of great value, particularly in these days when practising Christians are, alas, a minority.
My second guideline arises from the closer links that have been developing in recent years between the Churches. I rejoice to see the barriers breaking down and new links being forged. The Bill will assist in forging those new links and will give additional flexibility within all Churches.
My third guideline is the principle that there must be compelling arguments to


justify the House rejecting a Bill put forward by any responsible Church.
For years the trend has been towards maximum self-government in the Churches and a minimum of intervention by Parliament. Churches are responsible bodies, and we should treat them as such. They have their own methods of government and representation of clergy and layity, and we should be careful before we interfere. If we were to make a practice of intervention in the growing amount of legislation coming to the House from the Churches, what effect would it have on relations between the Churches and Parliament? History gives us a warning that we should proceed with caution. That warning also applies to the Churches.
I have one suggestion, which I hope will be followed up. We must work out a better early warning system than we appear to have at present, so that when a Church is thinking of legislation, ways will be devised for informal consultations to take place in the early stages, to avoid potential clashes developing between the Church and Parliament.
Although I disagree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I agree that consultation with membership is not one of the Church's strongest points. Perhaps the Methodist Church and other Churches may wish to reflect upon that.
I ask myself whether there are arguments that are sufficiently compelling to justify rejection of the Bill. My answer is clearly "No". Are there sufficiently compelling arguments for asking the House to impose this Instruction? My answer to that is also "No". The hon. Member for Goole put forward compelling arguments in the references he made to the amendments introduced in the other place to try to meet the understandable fears put forward on the part of some trustees. It would be unfortunate for the House to try to pre-empt the later stages of the Bill by accepting an Instruction of the kind suggested.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Despite what he said, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the House has responsibility for the generality of the membership of the Methodist Church, who apparently on this occasion were not

as widely consulted as they might have been?

Mr. Dean: I am coming to that.
There are two aspects that need to be looked at separately—the spiritual and the temporal. First, as to spiritual matters, matters of doctrine, the Methodist Church, as the hon. Member for Carlisle reminded us, is asking that it should be able to determine its own doctrine and be released from the bonds of the 1929 Act. It asks for the freedom that other Churches have. In introducing the Bill the hon. Member for Goole referred to the history of the 1929 Act, and I need not go into that.
It is wrong, certainly in modern times, that spiritual matters which are the concern of a responsible Church should be decided by a secular Parliament composed of Christians and non-Christians. There is no doubt in my mind, from my discussions with Methodists, that their feelings on this matter are very strong. If I were a Methodist I should feel exactly the same. Although the Bill deals with temporalities, on the spiritual side the House should hesitate before throwing it out and thereby also throwing out that aspect.
On the temporal side, the issues are not so clear and the House is entitled to do some probing in the light of its responsibility as the ultimate watchdog of the national interest, national justice and individual rights. I admit to some misgivings. I at least understand the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the trustees. I understand the misgivings about consultation, but there are two arguments that counterbalance the misgivings that have been expressed.
The first argument is that these proposals will enhance the power of the local church community. They are designed to enable the local church community to respond more effectively to new needs. The managing trustees will be the people on the spot—the church council. That seems to be a compelling argument, which we cannot lightly gainsay.
The second argument, which is important, is that the Methodist Church assures use that it has gone through its well-established procedures before bringing forward the Bill. We have the clear


statement on behalf of the promoters in paragraph 4 of the paper that:
In accordance with the Standing Orders of the Conference, and after full consultation within the Methodist Church, the provisions of the Bill have been submitted to the Conference in each of two successive years and, on each occasion have been approved almost unanimously.
It has been argued that the consultative procedures are not perfect, but what should be pre-eminent in our minds is that the established procedures laid down by the Methodist Church have been gone through. The case that has been put by the promoters of the Bill is convincing. Any misgivings we may have are much better dealt with in Committee. There is no case for rejecting the Bill, with all the serious consequences that would entail for the Methodist Church. Neither is there a case for the Instruction. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

10.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): At the outset I would like to say that I speak for myself tonight and not in my capacity as a Minister of the Crown. I was reluctant to intervene, but in 1974–75 I was vice-president of the Methodist Conference. During that year, when the Bill was being discussed in chapels up and down the country, I was privileged Sunday after Sunday to visit chapels throughout Britain and my experience prompts me to say what I hope will be a brief word tonight.
I grew up in a West Durham mining village where the chapel was the social centre. It was the training ground for involvement in community life. It was the sort of chapel where we were not given permission to go into politics: we were expected to go into politics. It was also the place of worship.
I am bound to say that the Methodist folk in my village have had a profound influence on my life. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the influence of the chapel in my thinking. In that village we had a built-in suspicion of everything that was said and done south of Darlington, let alone what happened in London. We were against anything which came from London. We ran our own affairs and we resented interference from circuit,

synod and particularly the Methodist Conference. Therefore, my traditions are with the traditions of those who have voiced the minority view tonight, because it is a minority view so far as the Methodist Church is concerned. Yet I find myself, as it were, commending the Bill.
I believe the Bill to be sensible, reasonable and forward-looking. I know, and I say this with great sincerity, that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of Methodist people. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt about that, otherwise I would not say it. Anybody who was fortunate enough, as I was, to grow up in a closely-knit, neighbourly community will understand the doubts, fears and misgivings which I know are sincerely and genuinely felt by those who have petitioned against the Bill. I assure hon. Members concerned that I understand those fears because I grew up in that kind of background. It is because I believe that those fears are groundless that I am making these remarks tonight.
The Methodist Conference is a democratic body—make no mistake about that. The democratic procedures have grown up over the years. There is equal representation of the ordained ministry and lay persons, as we now describe what in the old days we used to call laymen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) detailed the provisions of the Bill. It has been discussed in the Church for some years now. It was discussed in conference, then went back to the synods and then back to conference again. At no time has there ever been—and I say this with some authority—any attempt or wish by anybody I know in the Methodist Church to prevent people discussing what is in the Bill. Indeed, the very opposite is the truth.
It may well be that the formal procedures of consultation ought to be looked at, but I assure the House that the fact that there was not an instruction to ministers to consult the local church does not mean—certainly in my own experience—that ministers, laymen and certainly the vice-president have failed to take every opportunity to discuss the proposals in the Bill.
If I thought that discussion and consideration at local level would have meant any difference, I would have had doubts about my enthusiastic support for the


Bill. Nobody would accuse a Northumbrian or Durham Methodist of being an autocrat. I learned my democracy in the Methodist chapel, and I was very disturbed to hear my Church being described as one that was not ready to consult the grass roots.
The two issues which seem to be troubling the objectors are concerned, first, with property and the rights and duties of the trustees and, secondly, with doctrinal standards. Legal ownership of Methodist property will be transferred to the Central Board, and custodian trusteeship gives the central authority no duties or functions to perform in respect of the property vested in it other than actually holding the property and ensuring that it is not party to a breach of the trust upon which the property is held.
On the other hand, the managing trustees—in other words, the local church council—will have spiritual oversight over the local church and also manage the property. Far from being a resort to central administration or control, the Bill will in reality enhance the powers of the local church fellowship.
The Bill gives no new powers to close any chapel which are not already available to the Church. The Bill does not confer new powers to deal with redundancy. The chapel of which I have such vivid memory is now closed. When we decided to close it I regretted it, in a way, but I realise now that by joining the ex-Wesleyan and ex-Primitive Churches together we did a service to the Church and to the local community. Indeed, we now recognise that this was a step forward.
It has just been suggested—I do not quarrel with this—that there are people who want to be away from the Methodist Church as we know it. I think that the hon. Member who said this over-emphasised it. I remind him that since powers were taken there have been 1,122 redundancies and that 1,121 of those were voluntary. Only in one case has compulsion been used.
I am bound to say that the experiences in that one case have, I am certain, taught the Church a lesson. In these changing times, however, when there are three chapels in one village, it is surely sensible that redundancies should occur and that

the Christian community should work together. I hope that not only the Methodist churches but other churches as well will see the light in that respect.
I stress to the House, therefore, that in no sense is this a vesting of power centrally and a taking away of power from the local folk. The Bill provides flexibility in deploying the assets of the Church, as long as the use comes within the broad purpose of the Methodist Church.
On doctrinal standards, I am sure that the House may wonder why a non-conformist church is unable to alter its statement of doctrine without parliamentary approval. The conference—it represents the Methodist people—believes that the Methodist people, through their democratically elected decision-making assembly, should have the power to alter or amend the doctrinal standards, provided that such amendments are approved by a substantial majority after careful and prolonged consultation. Certainly "appropriate consultation" as defined in a standing order could not be more democratic.
The conference must first approve any change by a 75 per cent. majority. Then for two years there will be consultation right down to circuit level, and the whole of the Methodist people will be consulted. Every local Methodist church has direct representation to the circuit meeting. Then, two years after the first proposal, it will be submitted again to conference. Again, conference must have a 75 per cent. vote before any proposed alteration must become effective. I know of no more democratic procedure than that in any organisation to which I am attached.
The Bill will bring up to date the whole statutory machinery controlling the affairs and trust property of the Methodist Church. The genuine nature of this exercise, which has been the subject of many years of earnest and honest discussion, is clearly established by the overwhelming support of Methodists throughout the country. Because I believe that it is the express wish of Methodists, and because I believe that the Bill is in the best interests of our Church, of our nation and of the world, I commend this measure to the House.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I know that many of them will have a better claim to speak in this debate than I have since they are members of the Methodist Church rather than as in any case, of the Anglican Church. I shall heed the request from the Chair for short speeches, and I can only hope that in trying to accede to that request I shall be acquitted of any charge of superficiality in dealing with this important Bill.
I intended to begin by saying that I had no interest to declare because I am not a Methodist, but that would be wrong, because as a Member of Parliament I believe that I do have an interest to declare. As Members of Parliament, we are vested by the 1932 Act with a responsibility. Whether it is right or wrong that we should have that responsibility, the fact remains that we have it. That responsibility is to scrutinise measures brought forward by the democratic processes of the Methodist Church.
I believe that there is value in this procedure, which, I recognise, is somewhat anomalous. In the case of the Anglican Church, our minds go back a few months to the occasion when the Vacant Benefices Measure was before the House and when, for the first time since 1928, this House threw out a measure that came to us through the Anglican processes, it having been through the Synod and having been before the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Anglican Church. We threw out that measure not because we were against its purpose but because the Anglican Church had produced a legislative abortion. We threw it out, and the Church Times said in a leading article the following week that the Church should be grateful to the House of Commons for having been so vigilant.
I personally believe that there is value in the responsibility of this House in these matters. Whether there is value in that process or whether it is right that we should have that responsibility, the fact is that we possess it. Therefore, we must ask ourselves by what

criterion we should exercise our powers. I am clear that we should not exercise our powers by the criterion that we are arbiters of theology in the Methodist Church or from a belief that we are arbiters of the proper administration of the Methodist Church. We should exercise those powers according to the question whether, in our view, the Methodist Church has been consulted fully, thoroughly and painstakingly.
I do not doubt that those responsible for the Bill sincerely believe it to be right and to represent the wishes of the majority of the Methodist Church—and, for all I know, it may well be so. The vast preponderance of correspondence that I have received from my constituents is on the other side. I do not understand it to be contested by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). They say "We have not been consulted at church council or at circuit level". They say—and who am I to contest it?—that the lower one is in the Methodist hierarchy, if I may use that expression without offence, or the nearer one is to the grass roots, the greater is the degree of opposition to the Bill. If the circuits in a formal sense and the church councils have not been consulted, that represents a serious question mark against the rightness of voting for the Bill.
I observe the contrast between the procedure which has been thought right for this Bill and the procedure which was thought right for the Anglican-Methodist conversations. In the latter instance it was thought right to take the consultations down to circuit level. I was not impressed by the answer I was given when I put that point to the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Anglican-Methodist conversations represented a proposal which went to the very roots of the continuence of the Methodist Church, that this Bill is of lesser importance and that, therefore, that procedure is not necessary. I hope that does justice to the nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply.
The crucial features of the Bill are twofold. The first is to remove from the surveillance of this House any changes which may be put forward in the doctrine of the Methodist Church. The second is to remove from the control of local trustees the right to dispose of local


church property. Those would seem to be matters of great importance.
I am told in the vast preponderance of letters that I have received that this is a matter of great anxiety to Church members in my constituency. They resent the fact that there has been no consultation at circuit, let alone church council, level. When they tell me that their fellow Church members do not know what the Bill proposes, as a non-Methodist but as a Member of this House, as at present advised on the basis of what I have heard, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have been following closely my hon. and learned Friend's cogent argument. Would not a closer analogy be with the actions of this House at the end of 1974 when it granted freedom over worship and doctrine to the Church of England, doing so upon a request by the General Synod of that Church, realising that the dioceses had been consulted but not having any knowledge that the consultation had gone down to parochial level? That is surely a closer analogy. On that occasion the House gave its assent.

Mr. Mayhew: That is an important point that occurred to me. I believe there to be a distinction. I hope that I can be put right if I am wrong. Whereas in the Synod of the Church of England I believe there to be a more directly democratic foundation or basis, I am told that the Methodist Conference, which comes at the top of the pyramid as it were, is composed as to 50 per cent. of lay representatives and 50 per cent. of ministers. I understand that the lay representatives consist of heads of departments and chairmen of districts and that there is no election by way of mandate. There is a strong official or office-bearing component in the Methodist Conference. I am told that the district synods are chaired by district chairmen who are appointed from a general purposes committee. Therefore, there is a strong office-bearing component within the membership of the synod. That, if it is right, seems to be an important distinction between the hierarchy, as it were, of the Methodist Church and the example put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).
I do not want to say any more, but I hope that I have indicated the considerations that are a great cause for anxiety to me, trying to do my best as a Member of Parliament who is vested, rightly or wrongly, with a share of the duty to survey a proposal of this nature. The considerations that I have outlined have weighed strongly and with urgency upon those who have written to me. On the basis of what I have heard, I am bound to say that they will oblige me to vote against the Bill.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew)—that is a speech in itself—is absolutely right to take an interest in this debate on behalf of his constituents. He is right to do so, whether he be a Methodist, an Anglican, or a member of any other denomination. His duty as a Member of Parliament is to supervise and consider the legislation before us.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have almost exchanged places. I had the temerity to take part in the Church of England measure on worship and doctrine. I hope that my support on that occasion was welcome to the Anglicans. Any support on this occasion from Anglicans will be welcome to the Methodists.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made two references which I would take up straight away. First, he referred to the Methodist hierarchy. If anything, that hierarchy is longitudinal rather than pyramidical, but if it is an inverted cone we believe that the churches and chapels are at the top level and that the Methodist Conference is at the base. I say that with no disrespect to those who may or may not be witnesses of this debate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to consultation. Perhaps he will listen to the words of a Methodist minister in the West Derby constituency with whom I took up the issue of consultation by asking how far along the line conference should have gone and how far along the line it went in different areas. He makes the point that Parliament decided what the procedures of the Methodist Church should be.


Parliament decided how that consultation should take place, and the minister asks "Can Parliament direct the Methodist Conference to overrule its constitution, which is itself guaranteed by an Act of Parliament?" That is one of the dilemmas.
In coming to this Bill, the Methodist Church has done everything that Parliament asked it to do. If Parliament had wanted conference to do more, we should have asked conference to do more. The Methodist Church, after its consultative processes, comes before Parliament having done everything that Parliament has asked. In individual circumstances, conference has done much more than the minimum that Parliament imposed.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall in another context that Caesar asked one to go a mile and one had to go? As Parliament is Caesar in this rôle, and as the Methodist Church is a Christian church, why did the Church not go the second mile towards its total membership?

Mr. Ogden: I have the highest and warmest regard for my hon. Friend, but he is the "Great Dissenter" in these matters. I always welcome interventions from Congregationalists, but sometimes I wish they were in other places. My answer to my hon. Friend is that this is a matter of personal opinion. The Methodist people in West Derby have no complaint about the consultation. It might be that people in other parts of the country are more backward in coming forward than we are in the North-West. I never heard of a Nonconformist of any group who was not more than capable of knowing what was going on in the world and saying "Ah, but listen. They are not all south of Darlington or north of Watford".
My purpose is to support the Bill and to help to reduce the average length of speeches in this Chamber on this occasion. It is known that Members of this House belong to an infinite variety of religious groups. There are Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. Christians, members of the Jewish faith and members of no faith but humanity itself. It is equally known with affection that there is a parliamentary group known affectionately

as the Mafia. Its full title is the Methodist Mafia. You, Mr. Speaker, are a witness to the fact that this group has friends in high places. The Methodist connexion in Parliament is deeper than is ever declared in the Register of Members' Interests. If I have to lobby you later, I hope that you will give your casting vote in support of the Bill.
Equally, however, hon. Members have put forward cogent, proper arguments in opposition to the Bill and done their duty to themselves and other interests. I am pleased that they did not begin quoting my constituents' points of view, because I might have had a point of principle to raise. It happens that I belong to the Methodist Church. My family, whether they came from St. Erth in Cornwall or from Lancashire, were known in that lovely term "Big Methodists". We were Primitive Methodists. I have been told by one of the Catholic hierarchy in Liverpool that if they had to have a Protestant they could not get someone much more Protestant than a Primitive Methodist. I still regard myself in that light.
This is a strange Bill. Perhaps it would have been better if we had had two Bills, one on doctrine and one on property. Clauses 3 and 4 are supremely important to me, and much more important than the other clauses. These two Clauses, 3 and 4, are about the doctrine of the Church, and surely that ought to be decided by people outside this House. Clauses 5 and 6 concern the power to unite with other Churches. Would anyone oppose that? Those four clauses out of the 17 are essential and are four very good reasons why the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Fortunately or unfortunately, in this sceptred isle we are bedevilled by land and by property. Ten out of the 17 clauses of the Bill are about property. As my dad used to say, "Get hold of a bit of land or property." But that is not the fundamental point or purpose of the Bill. Presumably for some reason these matters had to be linked together. We do not have such Bills every few weeks. This is an expensive procedure. However, let us not throw out constitution and doctrine, purposes, amendment of the deed of union and the power to unite with other Churches because of differences about property that ought


to be able to be accommodated within the Second Reading and Committee proceedings.
I have done my best to consult those who have a direct influence and concern in Liverpool, in my constituency of West Derby, about this Bill. They have no complaints about the consultation procedures or about any lack of information. They know more about what has been happening in relation to this Bill than what their Member of Parliament has been saying about certain other parliamentary events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) will know, if Liverpool Members say something it is published in the Welsh editions of local papers, and if a Welsh Member says anything it is put in the Lancashire editions. There are no complaints from the people in my Liverpool constituency about this Bill. We should give it a Second Reading and send it on its way to Committee tonight.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity of speaking in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). He put his case very fairly, properly and very well. I do not agree with all he said, but he made a very reasonable speech.
I am not a Methodist, but I was a Nonconformist in my younger days until I joined the Anglican Church in a marvellous service called "Baptism for those of Riper Years". It was in the "riper years" that I transferred from being a Nonconformist to being an Anglican.
In my area of Devon, particularly in West Devon, there is a very large number of Methodists. If I may say so without being rude, they are a particular type of Methodist, in that many are Bible Christian Methodists. They feel these things very strongly indeed. As a matter of interest for the House, I think that the Bible Christian Methodist movement started in a little village called Shebbear in my constituency.
I believe that because I was a Nonconformist, and because I have many Methodists in my constituency, I have the right to speak on their behalf and try to put forward the views which they have expressed to me. I also believe that this House has a role to play. I do not see why we should be shy about this and

apologise for speaking. Surely it is our duty. The Methodists came to this House with the Church Act of 1932, and now they have come again with this Bill. It would be very funny if we in the House of Commons did not speak about these matters and air the views of our constituents. Let us do away with this nonsense that we are not supposed to speak of these things. We have every right to do so and indeed, a duty to do so. I only wish that these things were discussed more often than some of the other stupid things we have to debate.
The House of Commons should act as a sort of long-stop in these matter's. We should say to the Church concerned "Think again", because that is the role of Parliament. It is as true of the Methodist Church as it is of the Church of England. Recently we told the Church of England to think again, and that is absolutely right.
I am opposed to disestablishment. I think that this link is absolutely vital. It will be a sad day for the Methodist Church if, as has been suggested, it wants to break that link. Let us continue to try to work together. We should never forget that we have a Christian heritage in this country, and Methodists and Anglicans should count it a privilege that they have a link with the Mother Parliament. Long may it continue.
Again, we in Parliament should be the protectors of minorities and the views they express. Much of this Bill must be correct and must be wanted by the Methodists. I do not argue against that. But I am desperately worried about the whole business of consultation. According to my constituents, there was not the full consultation that there should have been. I think that this sort of thing happens in most denominations. The criticism made by my people in West Devon, and in the South-West generally, is that they have not been consulted fully on these matters. They may be wrong, but I should express their views tonight.

Mr. Lomas: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but when he says that his constituents were not consulted is he referring to lay preachers or to the ordained members of the Methodist Church?

Mr. Mills: I am talking entirely about the lay people who make up the body of


the Methodist Church and attend Sunday after Sunday those tiny chapels in the countryside. People feel very strongly, even passionately, about these matters of doctrine and trusteeship, both of which are very sensitive areas.
I would have thought that the Methodist Church as a whole should go out of its way to see that every person was consulted about these matters, if possible. It should bend over backwards to see that these were no grounds for such criticism. I say this to the Anglican Church as well.
It is important that bishops, superintendents and other leaders of the Churches must get it firmly in their minds that people are not prepared these days not to be consulted. I therefore ask that the Bill should be put back for proper consultation. I do not believe that that would do any harm. If the Bill is important and in the interests of the Methodist Church, it should be put back for a short time so that this further consultation can take place.
I have heard no one say that that would be difficult or would upset or spoil what is intended. After all, the Methodists have been going on the way they are for a very long time. What would six months' delay mean if it were to lead to fuller consultation? The strength of the Methodist Church lies in the very people who are saying that they have not been consulted. These are the people who regularly attend, God-fearing people who go to the chapels every Sunday.
Perhaps I may quote some of the letters which I have received on this subject to prove that these are not simply my views but that my local people are bitterly concerned about the matter. I have a letter from a circuit at Winkleigh, in Devon, which says:
We feel that our freedom as members of this body is being taken from us, and we feel that eventually not only will our places of worship but also the doctrine of our beloved church will also be affected.
The Northlew circuit wrote saying:
So you can appreciate one reason why opposition may be very small. Methodists are getting more and more frustrated by so much being done 'over their heads' without consultation.

Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of those letters? Did he

offer to meet any of these groups to explain, as he would for any other Bill, the intention behind the Bill?

Mr. Mills: I have done my best to explain it. I am a fairly busy lay reader in the Church of England on Sundays and at other times, and it is difficult to get round to the Methodist chapels. One letter was dated 25th April 1976 and the other 9th February. I have many other letters which express the same views.
This House is right to discuss these matters. I must ask the Methodist Church please to go back and consult fully. Once it has done that, it can go forward with the full confidence that is needed. I would then wish it very well indeed.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Like other hon. Members, I approach this debate with the care that this House always takes over Private Bills of substance, especially when the interests affected are not selfish but public-spirited. To approach a private measure with care must involve the House in inquiring carefully into its parentage.
I know that there is still time to go and there are revelations to come, but I suggest that in terms of parentage the Bill should be called the Methodist Conference Bill, not the Methodist Church Bill. Although there has been a certain amount of generalised talking, and although the Bill has been discussed by eminent Methodists in the areas they have visited, there has been no evidence that the generality of Methodists throughout the country—the 600,000 members of the Church—have been informed about the Bill.
Secondly, I approach the Bill—

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of the Methodist Recorder? Does it circulate in his part of the country?

Mr. Wainwright: I have taken certain precautions and established that the circulation of the Recorder at the last count was 41,000. I have noticed that in Yorkshire, where I practise my Methodism as a lay preacher and have done so since 1936, the Recorder is taken less and less, probably because of the lower spending


power of Yorkshire people rather than through any fall in the quality of the Recorder. To expect active and hardworking Methodist people to rely on a wholly commercial newspaper with a modest and falling circulation is no compliment to the Methodist authorities and is not a point of substance in discussing the parentage of the Bill.
Secondly, like other hon. Members I approach the Bill with particular care because of the high expression of regard which Methodist people of all different traditions held for this House in 1929. Some hon. Members are overlooking or have forgotten the fact that it was the three different Methodist Churches, nation-wide bodies with very different social backgrounds, which asked Parliament to act as referee in future if any wish were expressed by the conference for a change of doctrine. The House was approached to confer this boon on Methodist people, and when Parliament is treated with that degree of respect it should not easily contemplate passing back that duty as something which is no longer appropriate.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Reverting to the circulation of the Methodist Recorder, does not a circulation of 41,000 among a membership of 600,000 compare favourably with the circulation of any newspaper in the country?

Mr. Wainwright: I am not discussing—with respect, it is not material—the degree of penetration of the Methodist Recorder in newspaper terms. I am simply saying that if we are inquiring what the generality of 600,000 Methodists think about the Bill it is not a great help to be told that 40,000 copies of the Recorder are sold. Even if one allows three readers per copy, one is still short of a quarter of the Methodist membership.
Thirdly, I approach the Bill, as many others have done, with just the bonus of some little knowledge of Methodism, at any rate in Yorkshire, as secretary of the trustees of a chapel in a vast and battered down-town housing estate, a post which I gave up only when I was elected to this House. That piece of knowledge, scrappy and experiential though it is, enables me to put a gloss on some of the academic statements made in support

of the Bill. I do not suggest that anything inaccurate has been said, but when, for instance, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) told us that, through its minister, every church had a live and close link with the district synod, which is the highest level which has been told about the Bill, let alone discussed it, I could not repress a chuckle.
The chapel that I know is visited by a minister once or twice a quarter. No one would be so tactless, foolish and boring as to detain the minister about a Bill when four or five people were queueing up to tell the minister about the boiler that had burst, six or seven others were queueing up to tell him that they wanted him to stay another two years, three or four more were waiting to ask him about the condition of the manse and, far more important, the stewards were doing their duty by telling him about those members of the society who were sick and needed a visit from him. The idea that the minister comes flashing like Mercury into the chapel saying "Boys, I have news from the synod. Come and ask me questions about the matters raised in the district meeting.", bearing in mind that he is meeting 270 eminently respectable but highly establishment characters, is beyond belief.
Then we had the interesting and very characteristic speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). I must point out to him that, when he speaks of procedures such as those which the Methodist Church went through before presenting the Bill, he must not think that those procedures were ever laid down by Parliament. There is nothing about these procedures in the Act of 1929. They are simply the current standing orders of the conference.
That brings me to conference standing orders, and I ask for the attention of hon. Members because this is a matter of great substance which in my view contains what should be in the Bill. If the House allows the Methodist Conference to dispense with the parliamentary safeguards which conference itself sought in 1932, surely there should be put into legislation some definite form of obligation for future consultation on changes of doctrine. But that has not been done. The only words in the Bill which lay down any guideline or standard for the future conduct of doctrine negotiations


within Methodism are the vague, sentimental words "appropriate consultations". It is left entirely to the Methodist Conference to interpret those two pale, weak words which are in the Bill.
On the subject of the standing orders. I ask the House to appreciate that the Methodist Conference, time and again throughout history—even when it was accused in The Times of being a Star Chamber—has boasted that it is always master of its own house. That means that any standing orders, which have been described even tonight as a safeguard in the matter of future discussions about doctrine, could be cancelled, substituted or amended by any Methodist Conference as it pleased. The idea that this House is bequeathing to Methodism, as a substitute for its own safeguard, any kind of built-in, sacred standing orders is entirely wide of the mark.
I suggest that if the Bill is to proceed it should contain as a matter of principle—as part of the statute—a definite procedure for remedying the gross defects of the lack of consultation which have been exposed by so many hon. Members in this debate.

Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman is showing so little confidence in conference, why not say that this House should authorise every standing order of conference? Why not go the whole hog? Surely the Nonconformist Church is designed to give its members the right to run their own affairs.

Mr. Wainwright: My point must have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman. It is that Methodists, running their own affairs and in full control of their own affairs in 1929, voluntarily, expressly and deliberately said "We ask Parliament to give us this safeguard." That is exercising exactly the power that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) wants.
I conclude what I was saying about conference with two points. First, this determination of conference not to submit itself to any of the checks and balances of a normal senior constitutional body was brought out clearly in the Select Committee proceedings in another place only a few weeks ago, when the secretary of the conference, a most zealous servant of Methodism, was in Committee:

You are asking that the Conference should be unfettered in decisions if it wishes to take them?
and he replied:
Yes, indeed. It is for the Conference to decide in the light of the seriousness of the issue and its knowledge of our own people what kind of consultation is best likely to serve the interests of the whole church.
Conference is to be the total master. It is not to submit to any standards of conduct from outside or to submit to any instructions from Methodist people, but is to run its own proceedings.
What is this conference to which it is suggested that this House should hand over power which at present vests in Parliament? It consists of 576 people, half of them travelling ministers of the Church, and half of them lay persons, who include local ministers and local preachers. Of those, seven are current office holders, six are past presidents and vice-presidents, eight are assistant secretaries, 24 are secretaries and treasurers of departments, 20 are elected by the conference as laymen and 20 are elected by the conference as laywomen. Twenty-six are chairmen of districts, office-holders by their very nature. Last year 11 were ministers' wives. Eighteen are elected by divisional boards, 20 come from other Methodist conferences and 55 others are additional members of connectional committees. There are, therefore, 221 national ex-officio members, if I may so describe ministers' wives. Of the members who come up from districts, a number are mandated members of the local Methodist establishment. The same names appear year after year, and the conference has an even more spectacularly high average than this honourable House.
I turn to the question of whether the circumstances which led the Methodists to beg this House to act as a referee and safeguard have materially changed. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) put the point that circumstances have greatly changed since 1932, and I would put two points. The hon. Member spoke as though the 'thirties were some vanished palaeolithic age. That is strange talk, especially from the Labour Benches, from which we are still continually reminded that the memories of the 'thirties are of great importance, a view which I personally support. I would say, from the observations I have been able to make, that the tensions, potential splits and


fissures are as dangerous and potent now as they were in 1929.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What business is it of ours?

Mr. Wainwright: The business of ours is that the circumstances which led the Methodists ask the House of Commons in 1929 to take on this job still obtain today. There is just as much tension today as ever there was, and it is perfectly honourable and understandable tension, between those whose passion is for the local church or for independence for practising one's Christianity on the spot in local fellowship, in very much a New Testament fashion, and the equally honourable stance of those who say "In this wicked world we want a strongly-directed centralised church a power in the land, able to speak with a powerful voice."
I conclude with a further piece of evidence. The tension in respect of independence is far greater than it was in 1929, because then, as I remember, local resources were desperately strained. It was a time of intense depression and people were lucky indeed if they could get a grant of £25 a year out of Methodist headquarters in London. Today, the growth of the Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches shows that it is the easiest thing in the world to build up an instant congregation provided there is the talent available. Sometimes those of us who are in established denominations turn our eyes away deliberately from the extraordinary material, outward success of the Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches, which in our towns attract much greater congregations than those of most of the established bodies. There is just as much danger in Methodism today of a split if there is no outside referee as ever there was in 1929.

Mr. Ogden: Is there not an alternative? If the need for a particular form of consultation inside the Methodist Church, which the hon. Gentleman argues for, is accepted by Parliament, would it not be possible to give the Bill a Second Reading and in Committee write into it a form of consultation taking it much further along the line than the synod? If that form of consultation were not followed through, members of the

Church who were aggrieved would have the ordinary right in law, because the constitution and the law had been changed. All the hon. Gentleman's fears could he removed in Committee. If that were not done, would not Third Reading—not tonight—be the time to reject the Bill?

Mr. Wainwright: I still believe that retaining the safeguard of parliamentary approval is what many Methodists want. It has never been found wanting. There has been no defective operation of that section. Therefore, I am not anxious to lose it. The promoters have shown no disposition to meet us on this matter. As a minimum safeguard there should be a procedure written into the Bill.
There is abundant evidence that the Bill in its present form, especially Schedule 1, would catch properties which possibly for more than 100 years have had no official connection with the Methodist Conference or any of the Methodist conferences, properties which belong to the Wesleyan Reform Union and which one sees throughout the country, especially in the North, with a big, proud notice outside saying "Free Methodist Chapel". The bodies concerned run their own affairs, and many of them do not do badly. It is not a Committee point only, but a point of principle, that the House should not give a Second Reading to a Bill which will catch an uncertain number of properties which do not belong to the body promoting the Bill, and have not belonged to it for 100 years. The promoters have not been willing to meet us in any degree.
If it is suggested that I cannot state which of those Wesleyan Reform chapels are caught, it is for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the promoters are keeping mum about it, because if the House were unwise enough to legalise a polite form of theft their chapels would be involved. There can be no doubt that chapels which were Wesleyan until the secession, which are held on deeds of 1832, 1842 and possibly 1846, and which since 1859 have had no connection with the Methodist Conference, will be caught by the schedule.
On those two grounds of principle, I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Before coming to some of the details, I should like to make some comments about the method which the conference has adopted to pursue its objective expressed in the Bill.
With a certain flush of pride, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) said that 33 bodies were consulted and that that is the ultimate in democracy. But other hon. Members have made clear during the debate that some thousands of local congregations and hundreds of circuits have not been consulted.
When we talk of conference being representative of the whole Methodist Church, we must be careful. As a minister ordained in the Methodist Church in Ireland, I have had long experience of conference, which, I am sure, is run on similar lines to that on the mainland. Conference is not representative of the vast majority of Methodists in Ireland, and I suspect that English conference is not representative of Methodists on the mainland. As the hon. Member for Caine Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said, the type of people who attend conference are those who tend to go there whether or not they are those most fitted to do so. Perhaps the time has come when the Methodist Conference should substitute its opening hymn "Are we yet alive" by the song "I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar places". The same people turn up, particularly when fundamental decisions are to be taken.
The hon. Member for Goole said that those who object to the Bill represent only 1 per cent. and number only 6,000 members of the Methodist Church. If we listen to Dr. Coggan—I often do because he is a distinguished theologian—we are led to believe that for every person who takes the time and trouble to sign a document there are at least 100 who agree with a particular proposition. Even if that figure is halved, the number objecting to the Bill could be half the Methodist population on the mainland. It is not valid to argue that, because only 6,000 people petitioned against the Bill, only that number are in opposition to it.
We have heard that procedures are being meticulously observed, but that is untrue. A Methodist minister with 4,000 signatures to his document tells me

that in 1974–5 the circuit meetings were not consulted, and great care was apparently taken so that information did not reach the March 1975 circuit meetings in time for them to send memorials to conference against the Bill. Scant information emerged, instructions to submit memorials were hindered and few memorials were discussed at the 1975 conference. Procedures have obviously not been adhered to.
I now turn to property. If we indulge in central trusteeship, we move towards monopoly and manipulation. Many argue that central trusteeship is a way of enforcing adherence to a future doctrine on which there may not be agreement. Central trusteeship is almost an immoral problem. I am not trying to attack freedom. Freedom with dignity is a well-known gospel concept. I am attacking irresponsible licence. If a Church usurps to itself authority over property which did not belong to it in the first place—which is apparent from Part I of Schedule 1—there is in that action an element of monopoly and manipulation for reasons best known to the conference which indulges in that improper practice.
The question we should be asking is, what are the motives for this great desire to change the deed of unity and the theology of the Methodist Church? The House is not in a position to judge theological matters—this is not a theological convention—but the House is capable of objective judgment of the motives for change.
I suggest that there are two reasons for this desire for a change in doctrine. The first is to make easier future transition into a united church with the Anglicans. To do that, Methodists have to contravene their sources of belief, practice and doctrine, which are Wesley's "Notes on the New Testament", and the 44 sermons recognised by the Irish conference and the British conference.
I come to the interpretation of the sacrament. The Methodist Church has a committee which is liaising with a committee of Roman Catholic theologians. The Anglican Church has taken a new stand on the sacraments. It no longer adheres to the consubstantiation doctrine. It clearly stated two years ago that it adhered to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Again, the Methodist Church will


have to contravene its doctrine as stated in Wesley's sermons and the "Notes on the New Testament" if it is to facilitate further dialogue with the Anglican committee and the Roman Catholic committee.
The second motive for the desire for change might be that the Methodist Church realises that it has no organic future unless it is united with a larger and more viable body. The pursuit of the Bill to safeguard whatever is left of the Methodist structure because it is no longer a viable unit is not a very commendable motive. I can think of many reasons for joining the Anglicans. I have the greatest regard for the Anglican Communion, but surely one of the worst possible motives is to join out of a position of financial weakness. That certainly is one of the ulterior motives of those who urge acceptance of the Bill.
I would ask the Methodist theologians who are here in great strength, what are their reasons for departing from the established doctrine? What have they now discovered to be so deficient about the Methodist position over all these years which urges them to change the doctrinal basis? They may say that that has not yet been done, but many Methodist preachers and ministers have done so unofficially. What the Bill seeks to do is to afford them the right to do so officially and legally.
I well remember the time when Dr. Sangster was packing to the doors that great structure not far from this House. It attracted men and women of every nationality. They found there a spontaneous warmth and dignity and a true Methodism. When that kind of ethos dominated the Methodist Church here in Great Britain and Ireland, we truly had a mission and a witness. The interesting thing is that the Anglican churches which have now assumed that sort of ethos are the vibrating churches within the community. They are the churches which are attracting the people. They have no financial difficulties or difficulty about finding their mission or theology or what they ought to be doing in the community. We are sacrificing that kind of heritage and tradition for an unknown quantity, for a system which has yet to be defined.
We have been told by the Secretary of the Methodist Conference that if John

Wesley were here today he would have supported the Bill. That is completely to ignore the position which Wesley adopted in his writings and which the Methodist Church, both on the mainland and in Ireland, purports to adhere to. It is quite clear that for the Secretary of the Methodist Conference to make that sort of statement there is a serious casualness in the highest quarter of the Methodist Church. That does not augur well for Methodists who are seeking some kind of safeguard as far as their future position is concerned.

Mr. van Straubenzee: rose—

Mr. Bradford: For one of the chief office-bearers in the Church to make such a ludicrous statement and to misrepresent Wesley's position does not augur well for those who would seek to hold on to the traditional doctrine and teaching of the Methodist Church.
I make a plea to this House and to Methodists, Anglicans and atheists to retain democracy. It has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that all the procedures were put into operation to establish the consensus of the whole Church. Whether we are churchmen or not, we ought to be interested in democracy. This honourable House is eminently suitable to exercise surveillance over democracy, to demand it where it has not been present and to purify it when necessary.
Of course, the Methodist Church in Great Britain and Ireland is free to change its doctrine by a majority vote and decision. Once it decides to scrap its traditions and heritage, let it come as such with one mind to this House. Let it declare itself no longer to be the Methodist Church. Let it call itself the Church of the Reformation, let it join Mr. Moon, but do not let it call itself the Methodist Church. The true Methodists in Great Britain and Ireland are looking to this House for protection. They must have the protection of this House against the capricious escapades of conference. I plead with hon. Members to vote against the Bill.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: If it is an advantage to a debate to have contrast, we have been greatly


benefited by the speech to which we have just listened, because up to this moment it has been a debate of the very highest level and for a brief moment we heard some of the reasons for our tragedies in Northern Ireland.
There is one short answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), and it is this. He knows it, and that was why he would not give way to me. Nothing in this Bill refers to Northern Ireland. If later a change is required in the Methodism of Northern Ireland, a Bill will be necessary for that.
The Bill, in its Long Title, refers to Great Britain. That is what we are talking about, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled, as a Member of this honourable House, to speak. I did not care very much for the glimpses of the Popery which he found so unpleasant behind the Bill. It seems to me to conflict almost exactly with the general attitudes of almost every hon. Member who has spoken, whether for or against the Bill.
I must be brief. If we are to come to a decision, as I hope we shall, those of us who are now to be called must be very brief indeed, and I put my short comments in note form only.
There is a very considerable lesson in the Bill for Anglicans, because there are many Anglicans who search after disestablishment in the belief that thereby they would get relief from control by this House. Here we are dealing with a Church which is not established, but as soon as property rights of any kind arise, whatever church it may be, it is subject and rightly so, to the jurisdiction of this House. This House is right to be careful and watchful where property rights are involved, whoever may be concerned.
I confess, quite frankly, that I have not myself, as a non-Methodist, found it at all easy to decide whether it was right for this House to agree to the greater centralisation of powers and the removal of certain powers to central trustees, which is inherent in part of the Bill. But as one of a number of Church Commissioners, under powers given by this House, month by month I take part in a centralisation process in the Church of England.
I reluctantly at times have to make corporate decisions with others about the

redundancy of churches, under authority given by this House. With others I have to make decisions about the amalgamation of parishes and the rest, sometimes, as well I know, causing acute hurt and anxiety to the devout Anglicans working within those parishes.
The truth is that the churches, if they are to survive, must live. They must live in the modern world, and part of this, as I believe, is the bringing up to date of their affairs. That is hard on the active church people, and a number of active Methodists have had a pretty hard time, in a friendly way, from hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight. They are the activists who are so often criticised, but they are the people who are seeking day by day to bring their respective churches into the last part of the twentieth century.
Have the members of the Methodist Church been adequately consulted about the Bill? I consulted the minister of one of my local Methodist churches, and he used a phrase which I found persuasive. I think I could understand it as an elected member—I think I am the only Member here who is—of the General Synod of the Church of England. He said "It is in our Methodist tradition to deal gently with those who take a different view from the majority view that the rest of us will take." That group of ordinary church people, who play a vital part in the affairs of my constituency, are content and happy with the situation. They do not believe that those who represent them in the various groupings are unrepresentative of the work of the Church of England.
Finally, I wish to draw attention to the analogy to which I have drawn attention on other occasions—as did the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in a very persuasive speech—namely, what this House decided rather less than two years ago with the doctrines of the Church of England. I am not sure whether this House has understood what a profound occasion that was in the life of the Church of England or how difficult it would have been for devoted members of that Church had this House not given it freedom over its worship and doctrine.
It has been said that we must draw a distinction because for Methodists this


is a compact to which we are witnesses, with the implication that the situation in the Church of England is different. But is that the case? Of course, historically in a doctrinal sense, in many ways the situation is different. We as the sovereign Parliament were witnesses to part of the settlement of the Reformation. That is what we were "breaking" when we made that historic decision in 1974. We then decided that it was no longer fitting for us as a House of Commons—a House which until 1829 required of all its Members that they should be members of the Church of England—to sit in judgment on the doctrines of the Church. It is that argument which I find totally persuasive, and it is that which I hope will lead hon. Members to vote for the Bill tonight.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Time for debate is short, and I shall come briefly to the point.
I was brought up in a strict Methodist tradition. My uncle was the Headmaster of Rydal School, a leading school in the Methodist Church. When I was a schoolboy I would sit with my uncle in the days just prior to the 1929 Act of Union. Therefore, I probably know a good deal more than most hon. Members about what went on in the minds of Methodists at the time when discussing union. I also remember Dr. Burton, a leading Methodist and hymn-writer. These matters were discussed carefully at that time many years ago.
From what I remember, the feeling at the time was that it was unusual for the Methodist Church to wish to get itself tied up in parliamentary affairs. But in considering union with other faiths with the same basic belief which had been separated over the years, who else could act as arbiter and keeper of their conscience? That is my recollection of the feelings leading to Parliament being given these powers.
I find it extraordinary tonight to hear leading Methodists and local preachers say that we must retain powers in this House and appear to have no confidence in the Methodist Conference. What an extraordinary speech we had from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on that score.
Let me turn to the subject of consultation. The first things I did when I heard of the Bill was to send a copy of it to the minister of Methodist church in my constituency. I said to Methodists "This Bill has been introduced. Do you want it explained?" I had meetings with them. Even tonight I telephoned every Methodist minister in my constituency and said "The Bill is coming up tonight. Are you quite satisfied? Do you wish me to vote for it?"
The argument has been put forward that people have not been properly consulted. When I telephoned ministers in my constituency, they replied "Good gracious, have all Members done what you have done?" For hon. Members to suggest that the Bill should be turned down because their own constituents have not been properly consulted is not a reflection on the Methodist Conference or on the Methodist Church but is possibly a reflection on themselves. Hon. Members should have taken the trouble that I have taken to consult, to explain, to take copies of the Bill to their constituencies and to take photostat copies. I did not think it was fair to ask the promoters to do that. Therefore, the photostat copies were taken not here but in Folkestone.
Hon. Members now say that the Bill should be rejected and put back for six months, with extra expense. Surely they know how difficult it is to raise funds for the Methodist Church. What right has the House to say that the Bill should be put back? It would put the Methodist Church to considerable expense to reconsider the Bill. It is the duty of every Member who wants to help the Methodist Church to support the Bill.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: In the few moments that remain I shall, if I may, become somewhat disjointed and speak rapidly from notes.
My first fear is that in rural areas where Methodism means a great deal to the social and moral life of communities there will be a tendency on the part of many local Methodist societies to go totally independent and to break outside the Methodist Church, thus causing fragmentation.
My second fear is that in future many churches that are now kept going by the very real sacrifice of worship will be closed at the whim of centralised accountants, and for no reason relating to worship.
My third fear is that we shall see in the Methodist Church, as in the Church of England, a growing standardisation and centralisation in what is traditionally a free form of worship. Indeed, we would see not only centralisation but standardisation from the various decisions of conference until such time as conference, with a 75 per cent. majority and two years of deliberations, declared itself redundant. I believe that the Bill could better be known as the Methodist Church Dismemberment Bill. For that reason I shall be opposing it tonight.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I give my full support to the Bill. I think it is a first-class measure. I was sorry to hear the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) made about the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). Although some of the

hon. Gentleman's remarks went further than some hon. Members would have gone, I thought that he rightly stressed —I think I am right in saying that he never said the words "Northern Ireland" but referred continually to Ireland as a whole—that in Ireland there are many Methodists. It is a flourishing organisation in Ireland, and I am lucky to call many Methodists in Ireland my friends.

I am much in favour of the Bill. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have been approached from people in various parts of the country—for example, by circuits in Leicestershire and the East Midlands, which are substantial Methodist areas. They are particularly anxious to see the Bill proceed.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 33.

Division No. 183.]
AYES
[11.33 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fox, Marcus
Perry, Ernest


Berry, Hon Anthony
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bishop, E. S.
George, Bruce
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boardman, H.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Roper, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Brittan, Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith
Silvester, Fred


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Sims, Roger


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Small, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Campbell, Ian
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Canavan, Dennis
Knight, Mrs Jill
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cant, R. B.
Knox, David
Tinn, James


Carlisle, Mark
Lambie, David
Urwin, T. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamborn, Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Coleman, Donald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Litterick, Tom
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cordle, John H.
Lomas, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Costain, A. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Watkins, David


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Watkinson, John


Crouch, David
McElhone, Frank
Weatherill, Bernard


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max
Weetch, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Dempsey, James
Marks, Kenneth
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dormand, J. D.
Mates, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mawby, Ray
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Woof, Robert


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Younger, Hon George


Evans, John (Newton)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Farr, John
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Noble, Mike
Mr. Ron Lewis.


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Gordon





NOES


Adley, Robert
Mayhew, Patrick
Skinner, Dennis


Bates, Alf
Mills, Peter
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Molyneaux, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Mudd, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunlop, John
Nott, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Freud, Clement
Pardoe, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Penhaligon, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Golding, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Richard Wainwright.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Mr. Speaker has not selected the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Perry: This is a private Bill promoted by the London Transport Executive. It is modelled on earlier Acts of the executive and its predecessors.
For the sake of convenience, a number of standard clauses have been incorporated by Clauses 7, 11 and 12 of the Bill, by reference to the appropriate sections of the London Transport Acts of 1963 to 1975.
The undertaking operated by the executive comprises mainly the London Underground system with its associated electrical generating stations and substations and the extensive system of bus services operating mainly within Greater London.
One of the purposes of the Bill is to authorise the carrying out of railway works which require the authority of Parliament, because without it they would or might be nuisances in law. The most obvious example is work involving interference with a highway. If done without statutory authority, it would of course be a public nuisance by definition. Since statutory authority is needed for works, it is also convenient to obtain from Parliament power to take

the land required compulsorily. This has always been the practice.
Part 1 of the Bill deals with interpretation and incorporation of General Acts.
Part 2 deals with works and authorises the construction of the executive of certain railway works in Greater London. Only one new work is proposed by the Bill, a ticket hall and footbridge at Surrey Docks station. This is most important because it deals with dockland in London. Most Londoners are concerned about the delay in rebuilding the dockland in South-East London.
The purpose of the works is to improve Surrey Docks station in order to enable it to deal with increased traffic likely to stem from the trade mart for which Trammel Crow has been granted planning permission. Its project is part of a much larger commercial development and one we all desire in order to see greater employment, more work and more development in dockland. The Greater London Council has made the preliminary step by developing the dockland area. There are technical reasons why the above-station works cannot be carried out without statutory authority or under the authority of the London Transport (No. 2) Act 1971, passed by the previous Conservative Government. Under that Act the executive is empowered to construct an enlarged station at Surrey Docks for the purposes of the Fleet Line.
There has been great controversy in the House about the delay in the completion and the further extension of the Fleet Line. This is a most important line. The final decision about when it should be completed has not been taken, and it is of keen interest to people living in South-East London as far out as Bromley and Orpington.
The objection to the first of the alternatives is that an interference with the highway known as Lower Road is thought to be necessary. The difficulty about the second alternative is that the power given by the 1971 Act is for the purposes of the Fleet Line. It is conceivable that it may never be constructed, but the enlarged station may nevertheless be wanted in connection with the trade mart. It is, however, of course intended to carry out the work now proposed so that it will fit in with the Fleet Line. The whole of the project is therefore connected with the Fleet Line and with the development of better transport for the people throughout South-East London down to the outer people throughout South-East London down to the outer boroughs of Greater London.
The ancillary works powers are dealt with in Clause 6 of the Bill. They are normal for such provisions. Part III deals with lands powers of which the same can be said. The powers which have been in the possession of the London Transport Executive for many years are simply being continued. Clause 9 enables the executive to acquire easements or rights for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and using the various functions that it already has.
Clause 10 provides that the compulsory purchase powers in Clause 8 are to cease on 31st December 1979. This provision was promised a few years ago, and the executive is simply keeping that promise. Clause 11 includes a number of common form ancillary powers taken from previous London Transport Acts relating to land. These powers have all been provided before, but it is necessary to include them in the Bill to prevent their expiry.
Protective provisions are included in Clause 12. Clause 13 provides protection for the sewers which belong to the Thames Water Authority, and that is another normal procedure. Clause 14 is made up of four subsections each of which extends the time for compulsory purchase of land required for the carrying out of works authorised in previous legislation.
The Bill is needed to expedite the provision of the Fleet Line and the extension of the line from the Strand or Charing Cross station to Fenchurch Street, which is the key link with the

whole of the development of the docks area. The second stage of the Fleet Line is a necessary prerequisite for constructing any further railway to South-East London beyond Fenchurch Street.
There has been some public discussion of whether priority should be given to the remainder of the Fleet Line for which statutory authority already exists—that is, the railway from Fenchurch Street to New Cross and Lewisham—or to the proposed railway to the dockland area in respect of which statutory authority would be required and has not yet been sought.
It is important that these powers should be granted so that the work can be carried out in dockland. I am aware of the concern of some Conservative Members who for a long time have been pressing for dockland to be redeveloped and for an adequate road or Underground system to be provided. The Bill will help to expedite the development of dockland.
Clause 15 is the usual right given to owners and lessees of land in respect of which the compulsory purchase power is extended by Clause 14 to compel the executive, at any time after 31st December 1976, either to acquire its interest in the land or to give up its power.
Clause 16 extends certain powers of the police which were originally conferred by Section 54 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, which had been renewed for successive periods of five years until 1975, when they were renewed for two and a half years. Section 54(1) authorises any constable to stop, search and arrest any person in the employment of the British Transport Commission—now the executive and the other successor bodies to the commission—or employed upon railway or other premises used for the handling or storage of goods who is reasonably suspected of being in possession of anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. The need for Section 54(1) has not been seriously disputed, and the Home Office has informed the executive that it supports it.
Section 54(2) of the 1949 Act makes it a criminal offence for any person arrested under subsection (1) to fail to account for how he came by the goods to the satisfaction of the court.
A clause identical with Clause 16 included in the British Railways Bill has recently been the subject matter of a debate in the House. On Report, an amendment was made deleting Section 54(2) from the extension of time, so that it will cease to be law on 31st December 1976. The executive will be seeking the leave of the Committee to which its Bill will be referred to make the same amendment to it.
Clause 17 of the Bill seeks the repeal of Section 91 of the London Passenger Transport Act 1936. Clause 18 authorises the executive to make microfilms of documents and provides by subsection (3) that enlargements of microfilms of documents which have been destroyed are to be admissible in evidence for any purpose for which the original would have been admissible.
This is a short Bill which is of interest to the people of London, particularly the South-Eastern area, which is one of the worst hit in terms of transport. It is essential to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will not only improve the environment of south-east London but will help the services of that hard-pressed commuter area to give people an adequate chance of getting to and from work.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am grateful for the chance to discuss London Transport, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) for his lucid exposition. His interest in and concern for the travelling public of inner London is well known. I want to take this opportunity to put some points on behalf of the outer London commuters.
As the hon. Member said, the Bill is perhaps of most importance to South-East London, extending especially to the outer suburbs. As any London Transport map shows, this sector, to use a piece of current jargon, is the most deprived. We depend for public transport almost entirely on Southern Region suburban services. They are inadequate. After all, this is a length of main-line railway. But services are often unsatisfactory, and the result is that the commuter in South-East London gets a raw deal compared with people living and working in other

parts of the Greater London area and further out along the main lines.
South-East London is neglected in its transport services, and the statutory provision laid upon the Greater London Council for ensuring the integration of transport within its area should be adhered to, bearing in mind especially the deprivation of South-East London in this respect.
There are a number of individual matters that I wish to raise, the first of which concerns the Underground. We do not often get an opportunity to raise matters of this kind, and I am grateful for this opportunity to do so. We know, for example, about the state of the District and Northern Lines. Their rolling stock is between 30 and 35 years old. It would be interesting to know what progress is being made in replacing it. From time to time official spokesmen have declared that it was to be replaced. It is still awaiting replacement. The Northern Line probably suffers most of all on the Underground system from inefficient, outdated and obsolescent stock.
I want to take up what the hon. Member for Battersea, South said about new lines. Can we get on more quickly with the extension of the Piccadilly Line to London Airport, for instance? It has been promised that it will be completed in mid-1977. I suppose that it is not possible to do it any earlier than that, considering the inhibitions on public expenditure and the sheer practical size of the problem. But it is tremendously urgent, as anyone who goes to London Airport by any means knows.
When I was last there on Saturday, the work being done in the airport seemed to be going on very slowly. Of course, a great deal of it is underground. At surface level, it is impossible to tell the extent to which progress is being made in laying the lines. Hatton Cross was opened in July 1975. I do not know whether that was on time. Can we expect definitely to see the Piccadilly Line extended right into London Airport for air travellers to take full advantage of it in mid-1977, as has been promised?
That brings me to the Fleet Line. A great many people in central London would like to know when we may expect to be clear of the works between Baker Street, Charing Cross and Strand stations.


They have caused a great deal of difficulty to the travelling public. I should also like to know whether it will include travellator and other facilities for those arriving at Charing Cross main line station who wish to travel on by Underground and for those arriving at Charing Cross Underground station on the Embankment who at present have to trudge up Villiers Street and then climb the steps into the main line station. I hope that the existing works on the Fleet Line will provide for some sort of easier connection between the Embankment station and the main line station.
Then, what about stage two between Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street? Is that getting Government financial support? What can be done about plans for its development, we do not know. Yet it is in that direction, perhaps, that development is most important of all, especially when we consider the prospect of the River Line, which is a quite exciting prospect That will open up a vast new area of urban habitation in London which will be comparatively new and which, because we are planning it now, enables us to avoid all the snarl-ups and bottlenecks in traffic and other arrangements which make life so difficult for the inhabitants of other parts of London.
Here we are with a new redevelopment area in dockland and the possibility of a line running through Fenchurch Street to dockland, which is quite exciting. It is important that we get our priorities right. Surely communications of this sort, Underground lines that will take us through that area and help its people as it is built up and developed are necessary where it is all too easy for the people to feel deprived of the social and urban amenities of the remainder of London. We should get this right. An Underground line and a proper system of communication are the first things we should ensure in any work in that part of the world.
There are other matters I should like to raise—for example, the provision of station car parks on the various lines to the outer London suburbs. They are an extremely useful contribution, in which the Greater London Transport Executive is giving a great service to the traveling

public by encouraging many motorists not to go further into London than their own local station or a station half-way along the route. People get into certain habits about these things and need to be encouraged.
It follows that charges at station car parks must be sufficiently attractive for motorists to be prepared to leave their cars and travel to London by Underground. In this connection, I understand that the experimental free parking which was allowed at Eastcote, Ruislip, and Ickenham has been abandoned. That is a great shame, because it means that the scheme was not supported by sufficient numbers of motorists and the charges must go up or that it was supported to such an extent that the council feels that it is able to charge. That is perhaps a good thing, but one would like to know whether the policy has succeeded.
There is a great problem of hooliganism at some Underground stations. Prevention is better than cure, and the police are already over-extended and overworked in various duties apart from having to keep on the watch for vandalism at certain stations.
I understand that there has been an installation of closed-circuit television at certain stations. I have not seen any results of this yet, and I do not know whether it is possible to monitor progress in these matters, but there are some stations, which I shall not name, where the problem is difficult and there have been arrangements for closed-circuit television surveillance. One would like to know what effect this has had and whether hooliganism has been or can be cured by this project.
The other matter I wish to raise concerns the proposed new one-man operated television-assisted trains on the Circle and Metropolitan Lines. They have been promised for some time. I should like to know when they will come into operation and which other lines are being proposed for one-man service. One wonders about this. Should we continue, even on a one-man basis, with manual operation of the Underground system? Should we not be considering a wholly automatic system? We have introduced it on the Victoria Line and I believe that it is a great success. Therefore, it seems a rather retrograde step to be considering development on the basis of one-man-operated


trains. Cannot we convert them all ultimately and prepare now for automatic operation?
When I was last in the United States, I was privileged to be shown over the Bay Area rapid transit system around San Francisco. Members of the Minister's Department will have been there, and I hope that he will pay San Francisco a visit. It is a very nice city and well worth visiting. It has much to show us in connection with the problem of transit of commuters. The system there is fully automatic, comparatively cheap and very efficient, apart from the odd breakdown, when everything is chaos. It was designed for the future and conditions very similar to ours. The benefits of full automation are great. I hope that it will be possible for London Transport to think on those lines when dealing with Underground development.
I turn to the question of the buses. I understand that last year about 15 per cent. of all scheduled mileage was lost—because of staff shortages or traffic congestion? Who knows? It has not been easy to understand. I gather that the overall staff shortage has been about 10 per cent. to 11 per cent., although it is as much as 20 per cent. in some areas. It is a wonder that the whole system of bus transport keeps going in London, considering the staff difficulties which have to be contended with.
But that is not the only problem. We are short of serviceable buses. I have had many complaints in my constituency about buses being late or simply not arriving. People sometimes wait for as long as an hour in the rain for a bus which eventually turns out to have been cancelled further along the route or never to have been put on. There is no early warning system for bus cancellations. In a constituency such as mine in South-East London, this is very damaging to the social life of a community which depends to a great extent on public transport of this kind. There is no Underground there, only some buses, and they are very much relied on.
I must pay tribute to the Chairman of the London Transport Executive, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, and his predecessor. They have both been immensely helpful and courteous over any query or complaint I have referred to them. I have

no criticism to make of the immense help one receives from the executive when one approaches it with practical problems. Because of the shortage of good, serviceable, roadworthy buses, however, services are often stymied in particular areas.
How are we getting on with replacements, spare parts and repairs to buses? The problem of staff comes in here again. I understand that a large proportion of buses load up but cannot be put on the road for want of a spare part or repair.
How is the delivery of new vehicles progressing? We see in the glossy literature wonderful examples of the new types of bus to be put on the roads in London. It would be marvellous if we could have them. It would be even more marvellous if the existing bus service could be made to work more efficiently, preferably to a greater percentage capacity.
While on the subject of buses, I should like to refer to the 36-ft. Red Arrow service. The whole fleet of single-deckers purchased in the late 1960s is being withdrawn because it has been discovered that they are too long for the roads on which they are expected to travel. Who made that error? The roads in London have not changed much, and one would think that those responsible would have calculated that a 36-ft. bus would be difficult to drive out of Great Peter Street into Victoria Street and other similar junctions. Has whoever was responsible for that error learned from the mistake, and will it be avoided in the future?
There are constant reports of industrial disputes, but I suspect that this is not as bad a problem as it used to be. I would like, however, to know by how many buses we are short. In August 1975, the last annual report said that there were about 900 too few for operating a full service. What percentage is that of the total? It must be a large percentage because the total is about 5,000 What progress is being made towards increasing the total number of serviceable buses and reducing the number not available for use?
Hooliganism and vandalism is the big problem at nights on certain routes. All too often one sees paint sprayed on the bus shelters that are kindly provided by London Transport, on timetables and on the upper decks of buses. We hear of attacks and assaults on passengers and


staff and of insults to the staff by young hooligans. The effect of the breakdown of law and order in society tends to show its ugly head first on the late night bus where the driver is isolated from passengers and the conducter has to deal with riff-raff and hooligans, who are often affected by drink, refusing to pay their fares. What progress is being made on that situation?
I am sure that there must be good police liaison, but how effective can it be? It is nice to think that the police can be called by alarm systems which, I understand, are fitted to 80 per cent. of buses in affected areas. Some of them have radios, but difficult situations arise suddenly and last for only a couple of seconds. A hooligan can run off before anyone can come to the assistance of the luckless conductor. Has the existing provision against hooliganism had any effect? Are further powers needed on top of those which the House helped to provide in the Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders) Act 1975?
One-man buses number 2,000 out of a total of 5,000. Are they all that useful? One sometimes gets the impression that the time wasted in giving change for fares almost equals any saving made by reducing manpower.
Perhaps the biggest problem is traffic congestion in the London area. The speed bus is apparently very popular with London Transport, but it is not so popular with motorists, the travelling public and taxi drivers who share the same routes. How effective are those buses? Is it right to say that they have not yet been brought fully into operation so that we have not seen the full benefit? They run over the most congested roads—Tottenham Court Road, Oxford Street and Regent Street. What progress is being made with these services, and can we expect an extension of the system throughout the area?
Traffic congestion is perhaps as much a matter for the Greater London Council as it is for London Transport Executive. For many years London Transport has been working on the art of predicting where major traffic jams will occur. The police, with the monitoring of closed circuit television, can assist in this, but to what extent there is co-operation I do not know. In this technological age, with the

assistance of monitors and closed circuit television, it should be possible to do a bit of fine tuning of the London bus system to take account of temporary traffic congestion and keep traffic moving.
What experiments are proposed to limit the number of private cars in central London? That is a big question. Unreasonable restrictions will be greatly resented.
All in all, we can look at the whole picture, especially at the number of passengers carried, with some satisfaction. According to last year's annual report, published this year, every morning 343,000 passengers travel into London by Underground, 402,000 by British Rail suburban services and 148,000 on central buses, making a total of 894,000 commuters who travel into and out of London every day. That is 83 per cent. of the total number of travellers into London. There are 161,000 passengers who come in by private car and 18,000 who come in by motor cycle or pedal cycle—17 per cent. of the total number. Over a million people travel into and out of London every day. We can be proud of that. There is a lot to be proud of in the London Transport system and the people who work it. They deserve our support in tackling the bigger and bigger problems that face them with the smaller and smaller resources they look like getting.

12.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): It might assist the House if I intervene at this stage to state the Government's attitude to the proposals contained in the Bill. Our view is that we have no objection to the proposals and we recognise that the provisions would contribute to a general improvement in and the effective running of the undertaking.
I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) will not read too much into the financial provisions for the docklands.
The Government's position was stated in the White Paper "Redevelopment of the London Docklands", Cmnd. 6193, as follows:
Developments in Docklands will be eligible for the normal forms of Government financial support to transport, housing and other purposes. The Government has no plans for special forms of support over and beyond these.


We are having discussions with London Transport and the Greater London Council on the future of the docklands and will examine carefully all the proposals that are made.
The Government receive many demands for financial assistance from all over the country, not only from London. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, it is important that we should get our priorities right. He raised several matters which are of concern to London Transport and the Greater London Council, and I have no doubt that those organisations will be communicating with him on the points he raised.
I hope that the House will decide to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee, where its provisions can be examined with the benefit of expert evidence.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am glad to follow the Minister. His remarks contrasted greatly with the silence of Ministers last night when we debated another London Bill for three hours. There was complete silence from the Government Front Bench on that occasion, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not to blame, and I am grateful for his intervention.
For the second night running, we are debating an extremely important Bill after midnight. The Bill last night was of such importance that the debate lasted the full three hours. The Government should in future think seriously before putting on two Bills of such importance late at night. I am sure that many other hon. Members would like to have taken part in the debate, but understandably, after last night they are elsewhere.
I would not like my criticisms of the Government in that respect to reflect on the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry), who explained the provisions of the Bill with his usual charm. We are most grateful to him. The House will also be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for drawing our attention to the problems of London Transport.
The Bill is mainly concerned with South-East London. As a North London Member. I make no complaints about that because the problems of dockland are

familiar to all of us who represent London. It is right that the emphasis in the Bill should be on South London. However, that does not mean that we do not have problems in other parts of London as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington mentioned Heathrow and the connecting link to the airport. My information is that we have slipped rather far behind in respect of the final link to Heathrow. With the abandonment of Maplin, however, the importance of a connection with Heathrow is now even greater than it was before. It is vital that this link with Heathrow should be completed at the earliest possible opportunity.
One thing which has not been mentioned in the debate is the question of bus lanes. I welcome bus lanes in principle but I have considerable reservations about some of them. I have an innate hatred of the one in Piccadilly because I think it is wrong for buses to go against the flow of traffic. The fact that they have to keep their headlights on all day is an indication of the problem.
I am also concerned about the bus lane now being constructed in Buckingham Palace Road. I am concerned because, having often travelled along that road when leaving the House, I feel that to have traffic from the railway station, the bus station and the air terminal in such a short space will lead to considerable difficulties, particularly during the next two or three months when the tourist season and holiday periods are at their height.
I hope that the Minister will be able to let us have more information about the installations of radios in buses. We have discussed this in previous debates and I would like to have the latest information about it. I believe that it would be an effective way of dealing with the hooliganism which has been referred to in the debate.
I would also support what has been said in respect of car parks at Underground stations. The present GLC policy of persuading commuters to leave their cars on the outskirts of London is being effective, and rightly so. However, one of the problems is that Underground station car parks are not large enough and more and more people are leaving


their cars in residential streets around the stations and causing great hardship and inconvenience to the people who live in the areas. If we are to succeed in persuading people to leave their cars outside London, there must be somewhere for them to leave them so that they do not inconvenience the people who live nearby.
Linked with the question of bus congestion and traffic congestion generally is the fact that it is vital that we complete as soon as possible the M25 around outer London. This will divert a lot of traffic from central London and enable buses and other traffic to travel much more freely.
I use the word "vital" deliberately, because even in these days of reduction of Government expenditure, which we all support, I was glad to see that the Minister for Transport, in opening the motorway two or three weeks ago, referred to the M25 as being vital. I support him in that, and I hope he will do everything possible to speed up the building of the road. It will affect my constituents and the constituents of many other hon. Members very beneficially.
Finally, I pay tribute to the previous Chairman of London Transport and to Mr. Kenneth Robinson. We are fortunate that as an ex-colleague he understands parliamentary problems and difficulties. He has been helpful in all the matters which have been raised.
In this short debate we have had the chance to air some of the grievances and problems which we have as London Members, and I am sure that the Minister, like his predecessors, will take them seriously.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: With the permission of the House, I should like to say that I am sure the points raised by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will be answered by the offices of the LTE, I hope very soon.
I agree with what has been said about the problems of hooliganism in London, particularly at some of our Underground stations. The remarks that the hon. Member for Orpington made, in his usual manner of concern for his constituents, can be applied to most of the London boroughs, inner and outer, We

all face these problems. Buses have been laid up, there has been a lack of spare parts and buses have remained in garages, not being used. From the information I have received, however, I am glad to note that the situation is improving. I hope that it will improve in places such as Orpington which suffer to some extent from not having an Underground service and having to rely only on British Rail and a bus service.
I thank hon. Members for their cooperation this evening. Perhaps we can learn to extend it to other spheres in the House within a relatively short time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committted.

Orders of the Day — WHEAT (BREAD-MAKING QUALITY)

12.28 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1368/76 relating to Baking Tests (Cereals).
The document before us tonight, EEC Document R/1368/76, is a draft Regulation laying down requirements for determining whether common wheat is of bread-making quality. My right hon. Friend and I welcome this opportunity of hearing hon. Members' comments before the draft Regulation comes before the Council of Agriculture Ministers next week.
The first question which comes to mind in considering this document is "Why do we need a Regulation of this sort?" It might therefore be useful to hon. Members if I explain briefly the background to the proposal, but before I do so I should like, on behalf of the House, to express our gratitude for the clear and helpful report produced by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his Committee.
The system of support which has been in force in the EEC up till now set an intervention price for wheat substantially above the level of other feed grains, and the eligibility of wheat for this price at intervention was related to milling


quality. This system was unsuitable, particularly to United Kingdom conditions, in two ways. First, a single support price for wheat higher than that for other feed grains discouraged the substitution of home-grown feed wheat for imported maize that might otherwise have occurred to the benefit of the balance of payments. Secondly, the use of "milling" characteristics to determine eligibility for intervention meant that some feed wheat was sold into intervention, particularly in Germany, at a price level designed for bread-making wheat. This has meant additional expense for FEOGA and the resultant mixture has been hard to dispose of.
In June last year, the Council of Ministers warned producers of wheats unsuitable for bread-making that they could not expect a return higher than was appropriate to a feedgrain and invited the Commission to submit appropriate proposals for the 1976–77 marketing year.
In consequence the Commission, as part of the common agricultural policy price proposals for 1976–77, proposed a new regime for wheat. The intervention price would relate to feed wheat and be set at a level commensurate with the price of other feed grains. Support for bread-making wheat would be by optional intervention measures at a reference price to be set above the feed wheat intervention price at a level reflecting the difference in yield of the two kinds of wheat. For 1976–77 a premium of about 13 per cent. over feed wheat was proposed.
The Council of Ministers, at the meeting held from 2nd to 6th March, decided to postpone this new system for one year and, instead, for 1976–77 agreed that the intervention price for soft wheat would relate to wheat of bread-making quality, with a lower effective support price for feed wheat. This system will operate for the 1976–77 year only. In subsequent years it is intended to return to the Commission's original proposals and to implement a reference price system for bread-making wheat.
In order to operate this two-tier system, it was clearly necessary that before the beginning of the 1976–77 year, on 1st August 1976, scientific experts in the various member States should agree on a satisfactory test to distinguish bread-making from non-bread-making wheats.
It might be convenient to emphasise that the proposed test is only for use for intervention and that normal trade is not affected. It is important that that fact should be made clear. At present, all the indications are that sales of bread-making wheat or feed wheat into intervention are most unlikely next season.
I wish now to stress some important points. The test which experts have been examining for intervention purposes has been called the "baking" test. It amounts to a detailed and rigorously-controlled examination of wheat at all stages from the grain, through the flour, the formation of dough and the proving stage, up to the baking of a loaf. It determines whether, under standardised conditions, samples of different wheats can be milled, made into dough, processed and then be baked into an acceptable loaf. That does not all take as long as might be expected. The process amounts to a comprehensive assessment of bread-making characteristics in wheat.
The trouble with some of the alternative tests already used by the trade is that they are tests of single or isolated properties of wheat. Tests of milling properties reveal whether a wheat is hard and whether it has a certain protein content. But wheat that passes such tests can still be of only poor quality in bread-making. For example, Maris Huntsman, being a hard grain, mills well but makes poor bread. Similarly a Continental wheat, such as Clement, can pass the Hagberg or alpha-amylase test and still produce poor bread.
Scientific experts drawn from all the member States recently concluded, on the basis of tests carried out under the auspices of the European Millers' Association at the request of the Commission, that it was not yet possible to classify loaves consistently in all member States at the final stage of bread-making. They none the less unanimously concluded that the first stage of the test—up to the point of testing the dough after mixing—was sufficiently reliable to be taken as a basis for assessing bread-making quality during the 1976–77 season, and have so recommended to the Commission. This solution—what is called the "machinability" test—now forms the basis of the document before us tonight.
My officials have held a number of meetings with trade associations and the National Farmers' Union to discuss the Commission's proposals. I must explain to the House that in general the trade would prefer to see a postponement of the new measures on wheat until the 1977–78 marketing year, when the full baking test will be available. However, it is unlikely that the new arrangements for supporting wheat could be postponed without the risk of reopening the entire price package agreed by the Council of Ministers in March. This is something my right hon. Friend and I wish to avoid. The trade understands this, and I think it accepts that the proposals regarding the machinability test will be made as watertight as it is possible to make them at this point in time.
We must bear in mind that the people carrying out the tests are expected to be scientists with long experience of this type of work. Moreover, the procedures will normally be carried through to the baking stage for comparison with results obtained at the dough-handling stage. This will provide useful experience for operating the full baking test in a year's time when support for bread-making wheat will be at a reference price set above the feed wheat intervention price at a level reflecting the difference in yield of the two kinds of wheat.
Finally, I remind hon. Members that the proposed test is for use only in an intervention situation. It is not a first step towards a Euro-loaf nor will it be used in trade, except for the purposes of intervention buying. Tests will be undertaken by suitably qualified individuals acting on behalf of the Intervention Board. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we do not expect that there will be any substantial offering of bread-making wheat or, indeed, feed wheat into intervention next year.
I hope that this brief explanation of the document before us will be helpful to hon. Members. I look forward to hearing the views of the House.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is because this whole subject refers only to intervention wheat that perhaps we should not be over-concerned about the quite substantial deficiencies in

the technical side of these proposals that I shall be mentioning. The Minister says that in the forthcoming harvest the United Kingdom price is likely to be higher than the intervention price and that it could well be that the test concerned will never be used. If, however, one has been involved, as I have been, in selling grain on the domestic market—I am sure that my hon. Friends who are in farming will confirm what I am about to say—one will accept that nothing is too certain.
We must be prepared for the possibility of using the intervention process to put a floor in the market. The House will know that the United Kingdom is deficient in all wheats and that the United Kingdom food industry wishes to continue to buy North American hard bread-making wheats as they are vastly superior to even the best European hard wheat for that purpose. I hope that our European partners will not expect Britain to be used as a dumping ground for all their hard wheats as a result of the negotiations that have taken place.
The Chorley Wood bread process, which has come into widespread use in the bread-making industry since 1966, has enabled the lower protein flour that is produced in this country to be used in our bread. That increased the proportion of European home-grown wheat in bread in this country from about 25 per cent. before 1966 to between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. today. I do not think that there should be any real objection to the United Kingdom adopting a two-tier price system for wheat as long as the test to divide the two varieties—the bread-making and the non-bread-making—is cheap, effective, speedy, reliable and well understood. I am afraid that the tests that are being proposed do not at present fall within those qualifications.
The Minister mentioned the package that his right hon. Friend brought back from Brussels. I hope we shall not be tempted into assuming that, because the overall balance of that package may have been beneficial, we should not go through the parts of such packages which are not helpful. Indeed, the debates that we have had on proteins and other matters show that that is not the Opposition's attitude. I think that this matter is worthy of more detailed criticism.
The House has before it an extract from the Twenty-third Report of the


Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation &c. The report has not yet been printed, but it has been reproduced for our benefit tonight. That report quotes the British Association of Grain, Seed, Feed and Agricultural Merchants Ltd as objecting strongly to this proposal and the Home Grown Cereals Authority as having considerable doubts about the technicalities of the test. The authority believed that the scientific evidence on which the Commission based its proposal was open to some dispute. I would go further and say that it is open to a good deal of dispute.
The British Association of Grain, Seed, Feed and Agricultural Merchants Ltd wrote to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge that he has replied to that letter. The association put succinctly the three points that have disturbed the merchants, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I read an extract from page 2 of the letter:
The proposals therefore concern one season only, the harvest for which will commence in about two months' time. The regulations for the testing have not yet been finalised and approved by the Council of Ministers, and the detailed control system to be operated by the intervention agency has also still to be agreed and finalised.
It is submitted that the principles involved in two-tier intervention, whereby producers are encouraged to grow high quality wheats, have been missed for this season, as by the time the scheme was announced the vast majority of the seed had already been sown.
The need to conserve Community funds is appreciated, but the complications of the implementation and control of the system currently being considered are such that the high administrative costs, at least in national terms, will greatly offset any potential savings.
This highlights one problem of the whole principle. If a satisfactory test can be devised, how will it be possible to sell the concept of two types of wheat to the farmer who is to produce it? How can we explain to a farmer why an apparently bread-making variety of wheat has not passed the test and what he should do to ensure that his next year's crop passes the test?
These are highly complex agricultural matters to which there is no simple answer. If we are to pay by quality or by differentiating between the reactions of a product, we must make clear to those producing that product what they can do to aim for the best market. One does not need to be a sage agriculturist

to know that there is a 15 per cent. lower price for wheat not of bread-making quality. The Minister suggested that there would be a 13 per cent. higher price the other way, but I suspect that it comes to much the same thing.
These points have been put before the Commission. The European Parliament debated this matter as long ago as 10th February during the general debate on the annual price-fixing. The rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. de Koning, went into this matter at some length, as reported at page 35 of the sitting of Tuesday 10th February. I shall not quote what he said. It has been stated in the debate. The matter has been drawn to the attention of the Commission by that Parliament.
I come now to the test. I cringe at the word "machinability". I hope that we shall not be inventing English words of such ghastly clumsiness to describe what is no more than a simple test of how sticky or not sticky the dough might be. The scientists in whose judgment the hon. Gentleman has much more faith than others who have studied their reports—I have in front of me several pages of criticism of the way in which they have arrived at their decisions—are working on the very simple proposition that if the dough is sticky it is not bread-making dough and that if it is not sticky it is bread-making. That will be the main yardstick on which wheat shall or shall not be paid for at the higher price if it goes into intervention this season.
The baking test is more complex. The matters that were investigated when the scientists were trying to come to a decision on this matter were such aspects as water absorption, alpha-amylase activity of the flour, dough-handling properties, and the volume, height, crust, colour, pore structure and crumb texture of the loaf. I am in no doubt that at least some members of the corn trade have visualised those factors being considered in a test loaf while a lorry is waiting to be topped into bin A or bin B. This was the basis for some concern. That concern ought to be allayed, I think, because the proposals which have been made will get round that detailed point.
Nevertheless, there is an indication that there will be some delay at intervention depots if, for example, there were to be a rush or any pressure on


them. First, there is very limited capacity for carrying out even the simple dough test. Secondly, I am not too clear about the number of points to which the grain might be delivered if physical intervention were to be attempted during the forthcoming season.
Finally, there are two points of fundamental importance which must be considered when the matter is raised again. The first and most important may be obvious. It is that the test should be a standard test throughout the Community. It should be simple, cheap, readily available and understood by merchants and farmers and by Governments or intervention authorities alike. No such test has yet been devised. If the two-element payment for wheat is to be continued in the future, a test that fulfils those requirements must be devised and agreed —not six weeks before next year's harvest; work must start on it at once. It should not be beyond the wit of the scientists of the Community to come up with a better yardstick than they have done so far.
The second point is that while the Minister of State has made it clear that this scheme is for this year only, pressures are building up, I understand particularly from the French, that the reference price system, which will do away with quite some part of the differentiation, should be delayed and not brought in next year. I do not know whether that information is good. However, if confusion is to be avoided, a scheme must be produced and made clear to the farmers of the Community before planting time this year.
In the selection of varieties—indeed, one could go so far as to say species, because it may be that planting wheat is not the most profitable occupation, and farmers may wish to plant barley, oats, rye or even maize—standardisation of the test is essential. A firm proposal from the Community as to how the whole of the cereal intervention and support system will work for next year must be established soon, as a matter of great urgency.
However, the basic principle of paying for quality is not one with which we would quarrel. Although it will be hard for British farmers to qualify for the

premium in the way as some of those in France and Northern Italy, we cannot argue with the basic concept of paying more for human than for cattle food. We would not wish to be more critical than that.

12.52 a.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this document because it is a classic example of the sort of Alice-in-Wonderland situation we are getting into with the agricultural Regulations which seem to emanate from the last price review.
We do not need to rehearse the skimmed milk saga again to see how one can get into the most extraordinary situation. Having listened very carefully to the Minister, I am very dissatisfied not only with his explanation but also with the fact that we are being asked to decide a matter of great concern not only to the agricultural community but to this Parliament. To put it in its most simple terms, I do not approve of legislation which is presented to the House on the basis that although it is inadequate and does not bear any close examination, and although none of the so-called experts is able to produce a test which is universally recognised and acceptable as being administrable, nevertheless we should accept the document because wheat will probably never go into intervention and, therefore, we should accept the suggestions that are made to us.
I was not elected to this House to pass bad legislation. That applies as much to tonight's document as to any major legislation. I have said at many discussions on this particular nonsense that, although I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, I can at least make dough. When I read some of the so-called expert opinions, I think that what is needed is a housewife or two to try to evolve a baking test and come up with more sensible answers.
We decided in discussions on the price review that there would be a two-tier system of payment for wheat. It was then said that a means of differentiating between hard and soft wheat was needed. We were told that it was exceedingly difficult to do this but that a test was in the process of being evolved and a certain amount of time was needed before it could come into operation.
We have a quotation from the diary of the European Parliament for 9th–12th February 1976 about a speech by Commissioner Petrus Lardinois on farm prices. It says:
He spoke first of the new cereals dispensation for wheat. He reminded the House that when the system had been changed for oats and barley there had been severe criticism in Germany, but once the system had begun to operate this criticism had faded out. As to devising a system by which one could tell which wheat was which, he asked the House to give him until 1 July, and not to condemn the system out of hand already.
That has been the history of the matter.
We are now well into June, and the provision is intended to come into operation on 1st August. I have never received satisfactory information about the type of test, about the so-called experts and their methods of work, or about the evidence upon which their views have been based. If Parliament is to be asked to decide a matter which will have a direct financial involvement, it should have these elementary facts. If not, we shall be back in the same situation that we were in before when Parliament had the opportunity to debate subjects of this kind late at night but the Benches were empty. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will forgive my saying that he and I must stop meeting like this in the early hours of the morning with only you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep us company.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Not merely to keep the hon. Lady company, but to keep an eye on her.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always happy to have your clear Gaelic eye upon me.
We are here yet again talking about a major price decision which is being submitted by the Commission before it has been properly thought out by the experts concerned and only a very short time before it is meant to be applied. When my right hon. Friend the Minister discusses this matter with the other EEC Ministers of Agriculture, I hope he will not be deterred by the fact that the price review carried this proposal as part of other recommendations. This matter is indicative of a lot of the difficulties we are getting into with the EEC on agriculture.

The agriculture industry in Britain could not survive if it was subjected to major financial measures taken at the last minute, applied without proper consultation and rubber-stamped at the last moment by a Parliament which did not have the opportunity of throwing them out.
That was what happened over skimmed milk powder, and the same is likely to happen to the proposal before us tonight. I am disturbed because I do not believe that the baking test is adequate. I do not believe that the machinability can be defended, and as a point of principle I do not believe that any major Department should ask Parliament to accept a Council Regulation which would have the force of law once it was fully accepted without giving adequate information to support the request.
The House should refuse to take note of the Council Regulation in the form in which it exists. I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear to the Commission that, if it is to apply the Regulations, it must make sure that they are workable and defensible, that they have been arrived at on the basis of knowledge and that they are not the last possible decision which is politically and cosmetically acceptable.
The Regulation is an open invitation to fraud. If the test is not clear and universal, as it is not, there will be countries in which, mysteriously, all the wheat that goes into intervention suddenly goes into the higher category. Perhaps I simply have a naturally nasty mind, particularly at this late hour, but that is possible if we are not clear what we are doing.
I hope that the House, if it does not reject the motion, will insist that any decisions, whether for this year or for any future price review, will be much more accurate than in the case of this Regulation and that the Commission will not use vague phrases in the expectation of being able to explain them when the scheme goes into operation.

11.00 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. I, too, think that much of the phrasing of the Minister's speech and the Commission document is sloppy and unsatisfactory. I


am unhappy that the Minister should say that because, in his belief, the document will never come into operation, because we are not likely to go into intervention for wheat this coming season, it does not matter how it is worded. It is all very well to say that now, with wheat at £100 a ton, but that is not a safe assumption for a Minister to make.
It is a pity that the test is based on a vague criterion which has not yet been finalised. It is fantastic to put on the statute book a Regulation based, according to the explanatory note, on the stickiness of the dough, which is only an interim assessment, pending the finalised solution. The note also states that certain high-yielding wheats would not meet the test requirements. We have only an idea of the temporary test requirements. What will be the final test requirements?
Is not this the wrong way to proceed? Is not the Minister putting the cart before the horse? If his consultations had started with the plant breeders, they would have told him that, instead of introducing a pattern to which British breeders will have to conform next year or the year after, the right way would have been to lay down those requirements three or four years ago. Then the breeders could try to gear themselves, if it were possible—I believe that it can be done—to produce a high-yielding hard wheat.
The Minister said that he had consulted the NFU and he mentioned the tests in certain laboratories. Presumably that is a continuing process, and I gather that a final result will be achieved next year. Are any tests being done in Britain, or are we relying purely on tests on British wheat in Continental laboratories, in Continental atmospheres, which are generally much drier than the humid atmosphere in the British Isles? It is essential to have a working pattern of tests evolving all the time in Britain, which has a far more humid atmosphere than any other member of the EEC except Ireland.
Farmers in Britain have many advantages over their counterparts in the EEC. We enjoy perhaps more humid and acceptable climatic conditions for many products. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) probably will say that certain parts of his constituency produce the best milk and dairy products

in the world. Climatically, Britain has many advantages over the rest of the EEC, but not when it comes to the production of hard wheat. Climatically, and because of our geographical situation, it is more difficult to produce hard wheats in Britain and in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, in a situation where we are likely to face a cut of 13 per cent. in the return on wheat prices, we have to recognise the geographical disadvantage to Britain and to Ireland, because hard wheats are produced more readily in southern EEC countries.
Having recognised that it is a geographical disadvantage, it is up to the Government of the day and up to the Minister to express our dissatisfaction with 13 per cent. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is too high a cut for soft wheats? I know that my farmers think so. We produce a tremendous amount of soft wheats in the Midlands, and my farmers think that a cut of 13 per cent. is far too high.
I appreciate that the Minister is probably much more tired than many of us. He has had a number of late nights recently. Even at this hour, however, I expected a sign of passion in his voice and a glint of fire in his eye. I hoped he would say "I am not accepting the 13 per cent., because I do not regard it as satisfactory for Britain." Something like that would have been a much more acceptable performance from him.
What the Minister said hinged on his statement that he did not expect intervention in wheat this year and, therefore, the document did not matter all that much, so why should we not all shut up and sit down? However, I think that there is a good chance that we may be getting into an intervention situation very soon, possibly in the autumn. It depends entirely not on what happens to the British harvest but on what happens in Russia and other countries and how their wheat harvests come off. This is a most significant point, and I want to elaborate on it for a moment or two.
The Minister is arguing that there will be no wheat intervention this year. I say that that assumption is based upon a reasonable return in world harvests. World production of wheat amounts to about 1,000 million tons a year. We in Britain produce less than 10 million tons a year, or about 1 per cent. Therefore,


what we produce here does not matter very much. But what happens in America, Russia and the other Eastern European countries which are big producers of wheat has an effect on whether we are likely to get into an intervention situation.
It should be put on record that for the past seven years the Russian harvests of all forms of cereals, especially wheat, have been very faltering. For many years, targets have not been met. In 1974–75 alone, the Russians produced only 160 million tons of a target of 232 million tons. This year they are expected to be much nearer their reduced target of 205 million tons and they are expected to produce 185 million tons. The situation is so delicately balanced on a knife edge that if the Russian harvest production were to exceed the 185 million tons target and get near to 205 million tons we could get into an intervention situation before October is with us.
I mention these statistics merely because we have to recognise that it is not what happens on British farms that really determines the prices our producers get. They are determined in the much bigger world markets. I beg the Minister to take a more robust attitude about all this and not simply assume that merely because an official tells him or he reads it in Farmers Weekly, we shall not get intervention this year. He must not fall into the trap of believing everything that his officials and fellow Ministers in Europe tell him.
Finally, I must echo once again the words of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe, who made a sound point when she said that not only was the wording of the document faulty but the reasoning behind the Minister's argument was also faulty. I hope that my words will stir and encourage him. It is only ten minutes past one, and there are seven hours to go before the work of the morning starts. The hon. Gentleman should go to his office at half-past six, wake up his officials and say "We are not satisfied with 13 per cent. We cannot assume that there will be no intervention, and we should take a little more robust attitude."

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest as a producer of grain. I only hope that this year we shall not

have to sell to intervention and that the price will be above that.
I am not happy about this draft Regulation. The Minister has said that it is only for intervention. We understand that, of course, but I think he is making a mistake. It could be that we shall have a large harvest, but it may be that we shall have to use the whole intervention procedure. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) when they say it is not right that the Minister should use the argument that we shall not use intervention and, therefore, there is not much to worry about. That is wrong.
Does the Minister realise the problems that this will mean to the trade? I doubt it. I do not think he understands the difficult position that the trade is in about this. Everyone in the trade is against the Regulation because, they all say it is unworkable. They should know. The House and the Government would do well to take careful note of what the trade is saying in these matters.
I see nothing wrong in the Minister going back to Brussels and saying that this one is not "on" this year. I hope he will make a stand about this. He talks about this as being part of a package and, therefore, something we have to accept. We have looked at the package and we do not like what we see. Not only that, but the trade says that it is unworkable. I see no reason why the Minister cannot go back and say that it will not work for us this year. The House should consider what would happen if the boot was on the other foot. If this happened to the French Government, they would certainly say that they could not accept the package.
The package is not workable. Therefore, we must have a much tougher attitude. Why did not the Minister and his officials realise this when they were making this unworkable package? Why were they not better briefed?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not need to defend my hon. Friend, because he is capable of looking after himself, but I must make the point that one of the difficulties is that until very recently we were never given information on what the Regulation contained. Hardly anybody could be well briefed because no


one knew what the Regulation would say.

Mr. Mills: That may be absolutely right, but why did not officials and Ministers realise that it would be extremely difficult to get any testing system to work? I do not always agree with everything the hon. Lady says, but I, too, have grave suspicions that other countries in the Community will see that things are right for them.
We recently had a very interesting discussion in a Select Committee. This country obeyed the rules right along the line. We advertised 3,450 times in the Journal. The others did so 1,500 times, 800 times and only eight. In other words, we were carrying out the Regulations. Others were not. We always have the dirty end of the stick because we play the correct rules and others do not. Therefore, I share the hon. Lady's fears.
I regret to say that I think I am the only member of the Select Committee present. The Committee considered these matters carefully and thought that the House should debate them.
The Minister cannot disregard the views of the trade and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, which have made some strong points. The authority's point about the testing of samples and the physical tests and so on must be taken into account.
I am also concerned that this is for one year only. It is no wonder that the trade is concerned about it. Nothing has been worked out in detail. The Regulation about testing and control by the intervention agency has still not been agreed. We have only two months to go before it could be in operation. The Minister must think again.
In the British Farmer, the NFU spoke about a "two-tier wheat mess". It is a mess, one that we should not accept. The Minister must seriously consider taking the views of the House to the Community and asking that this part of the package should not be accepted for one year. I believe what my hon. Friends have said about the farmers. They have not had a fair deal in that they have not had the time to prepare. That important point should not be overlooked.
I hope that we shall abandon this. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will say "We shall try to leave it for a year and introduce a better scheme next year." The scheme should be agreed with the trade and the farmers.
It is right that there should be some scheme. We should try to conserve the Community's funds and reduce expenditure, but another way must be found. The message from the Scrutiny Committee is "Please, Minister, think again."

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Bishop: The debate has been useful, although I regret the hour at which such debates take place. That, however, is not a matter for me, and I shall do my best to inspire the House with fire and passion. I stress that although I have said that the matter refers only to cases where wheat is taken into intervention—and intervention is not a certainty—I do not suggest that that is why the House should accept the motion. I suggest that the merits of the case are such that they should be supported.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of the prospects for intervention in the United Kingdom in the next year. That is important, but it is too early for us to be certain about the likelihood of intervention following the 1976 harvest. We are in deficit in both bread-making and feed wheat, and the price for imported grain therefore tends to keep market prices well above intervention levels. The situation depends also on the harvests in other parts of the world. Our present estimates suggest that there is unlikely to be any substantial amount of bread-making wheat from the 1976 harvest being offered into intervention. Whether intervention is used substantially is not, however, an argument for accepting a second-rate scheme.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) claimed that the scientific evidence leaves much in dispute. Scientists were unanimous in their opinion to the Commission in Brussels. They included representatives from most distinguished research organisations in the countries concerned, including the Flour Milling and Baking Research Association and the Lord Rank Research Institution.
I have discussed the matter with our scientists to ascertain how watertight the scheme is.

Mr. Wiggin: That is crucial to the debate. Is the Minister speaking of the dough test or the baking test, because the baking test is likely to be the most foolproof? Agra Europe of 21st May goes into detail and says that the baking tests were far more satisfactory and far from unanimous. Even the simplest assessment of the results shows that the tests were inadequately carried out and would not form the basis of any purchases in the coming season.

Mr. Bishop: Tests have been carried out by scientists from various countries, and we should not overlook the considerable experience and expertise of our own industry. A number of tests have been carried out in the trade. Because we have not yet achieved agreement on the baking tests, we feel that the present stage, where there is agreement, is sufficiently watertight to say with condence that it should go ahead.
There will be very little delay in testing at the intervention store, no more than occurs at present for milling wheat generally. The hon. Gentleman asked what farmers can do to aim for the best market. I remind him that our agricultural advisory service is already advising farmers on the best way to improve cereal production. We must not forget that farmers are producing primarily for sale on the market and not necessarily for sale into intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the possibility of inadequate legislation. I hope that my comments on the wheat tests which have taken place in the Community and in the United Kingdom by scientists who have had many decades of experience will set her mind at rest. My hon. Friend also referred to the possibility of fraud. As soon as we produce Regulations, someone always tries to think of a way to get round them, but tests on wheat quality are scientific and carefully defined and the Intervention Board is used to devising effective procedures for preventing abuse.
That brings me to the points made by the hon. Members for Harborough and Weston-super-Mare about the need for standardisation. It is important that all

the countries concerned should accept the need for standard procedures for checking if abuse is to be avoided. The fact that we have agreement among the scientists on the effectiveness of the measure should commend it to the House.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said the trade thought that the Regulation was unworkable, but I think he rather exaggerated the trade's objections. Most trading associations would prefer the matter to be put off for a year, as I said in my opening remarks. We have had full discussions with the trade associations concerned, and they have not suggested that the arrangements cannot be made to work. Their main concern is that the arrangements should be made as watertight as possible.
Baking tests involve a range of tests which must be done on expensive, complicated apparatus which is not found outside specialist laboratories. It is likely that the dough-handling test will be cheaper and more reliable than most of the alternative methods of testing. The tests will be carried out at Chorley Wood by scientists of many years' standing.
I value the brief discussion we have had tonight, and I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will take note of all the points raised when the matter is considered in Brussels next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1368/76 relating to Baking Tests (Cereals).

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael English, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir David Renton, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Sir Thomas Williams be members of the Select Committee on Procedure:

Ordered,
That the members of the Select Committee on Procedure nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Orders of the Day — RABIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to have the opportunity, three hours earlier than last night, of raising on the Adjournment the threat to the country of the importation of rabies. I thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and attention to me and several hon. Members on both sides of the House in his attempts to cope with the many requests and Questions we have thrown at him in recent weeks.
I had the opportunity to raise this subject in the Whitsun Adjournment debate, but on that occasion the Leader of the House was not in a position to make a ministerial reply. I know that many people will be eagerly looking forward to hearing that the Minister has accepted many of the suggestions which have been put to him.
Rabies is a disease which can bring to man one of the nastiest and most painful deaths known. There is no known cure for rabies. It can have, and in many countries does have, a devastating effect on animal life.
The problem of co-ordination is a great one. The Department itself is responsible, particularly for the post-outbreak situation. The Home Office is responsible for police powers. The Department of Health and Social Security has responsibility connected with port health authorities and the Treasury controls Customs. The county councils act as agents for Customs, and the police and district councils are involved. In my constituency the New Forest District Council has now instituted a thrice-weekly patrol, and the marina operators are greatly concerned about the problem.
It is now vitally important that the Minister gives a lead to all the county councils and authorities involved in the country in the co-ordination of the measures being taken in attempting to prevent the entry of rabies into this country.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider a model plan which could be sent out urgently as a guideline to all county

councils to try to get conformity in the co-ordinatory measures. The Minister is on a hiding to nothing in this matter, because if rabies does not come in this week or next week no one will thank him. However, if there is an outbreak he will get the blame. In his own interests, he is obviously well advised to do as much as he can.
The Government have listened carefully to representations which have been put to them. I understand that the National Yacht Harbour Association yesterday received assurances from the Minister about the points it raised with him. I do not think it is immodest of me to point out that until I put down a Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister to meet the NYHA there had been no contact between that body and his Department.
I hope that the Minister tonight will be able to say something about the outcome of the discussions he is having with the Association of Chief Constables. This was referred to at length at a recent meeting we had, and we are anxious to know the views of the police. I hope he will also be able to say something about the vaccine position as distinct from the vaccination position. Is plenty of vaccine available, and what transport facilities exist to carry the vaccine from the place where it is presently being stored should an outbreak occur at our ports or elsewhere on the coastline at an inconvenient moment during the weekend, which is always the likeliest time for these things to occur?
The Minister has been pressed about large signs at estuaries, ports and marinas. Up to the moment, he has been somewhat unenthusiastic about the proposal. I would inform him that Hampshire County Council has now accepted that the environmental disadvantages of large signs must be considered to be the price which has to be paid. In the Hamble River an 18-sq. ft. sign is being erected by the Hampshire County Council at a cost of £700. There is no doubt that if these signs are put up county councils will find themselves involved in the expenditure of large sums of money.
The Christchurch council, in my constituency, is now authorising the posting of notices at suitable points along the coastline where possible boat landings


could be made. However, I still believe that there is far too much hit and miss in respect of the problem by local authorities up and down the country. That is why I hope that the Minister will consider a model plan at the earliest possible opportunity.
Why is it that Hampshire County Council is having to print its own leaflets? I believe that this is something the Department should have done and should be doing. It seems stupid that the Hampshire County Council is printing leaflets in six languages and that at the bottom are the words
Issued by Hampshire County Council in the interest of public safety.
I hope that the Department will produce some leaflets so that every local authority in Great Britain will be able to use them.

Mr. Michael Jopling: While I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, may I ask whether he has seen the advertisement in last weekend's Sunday Telegraph by the Cunard Steam-Ship Company extolling the virtues of crossing the Atlantic backwards and forwards in the "Queen Elizabeth II"? That advertisement contains a drawing of a lady who is enjoying the pleasures of the shopping arcade, and who seems to be tripping around with a lot of parcels and with a clog on a lead. Would he agree that this is a most deplorable advertisement which, if read by people in America, might easily lead them to believe that it would be perfectly permissible to bring a dog across the Atlantic? Does he agree that the Government should take steps to see that this particular advertisement by the Cunard Company is suppressed at once?

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the support he has offered from the Front Bench to a number of the proposals that have been made. Of course, I agree with him. I do not know who can have written the copy for that advertisement, but it cannot be anyone who is aware of the fears and anxieties, particularly in this country and around our coastlines, about the present situation.
I want now to consider those whom we are trying to prevent breaking our animal quarantine Regulations. It has become accepted in the last few weeks that the most likely people to break the Regulations

are foreigners visiting these shores. I have long doubted this, certainly from the evidence of my own eyes in my own constituency, where some British citizens are in the habit of getting on their boats at the weekend and taking their animals with them. I agree with my hon. Friend that the offenders are more likely to be the sort of people who get on "gin palaces" or the "QE II" than the genuine yachtsman.
As a result of Questions which I put to the Department, I have come up with the rather surprising statistic that 38 per cent. of the offences committed during 1975 in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 were committed by British citizens and 19 per cent. by German citizens. Quite a long way down the scale come the French, the Italians, the Dutch and so on.
The evidence is that it is British citizens themselves, deliberately and knowingly abusing the quarantine Regulations, who may well be the main culprits. Mum comes down from the Midlands in a large motor car, parks it in the marina, gets on an expensive motor yacht with her poodle stuffed up her jumper, not wanting to be separated from the pet for the weekend, and nobody is to know whether they are going for a sail round the Isle of Wight or to Cherbourg. A great deal more attention needs to be paid to the problem created by our own citizens.
I want to ask the Minister about the position with our EEC partners. He has told me in a Written Answer that our embassies are now in the process of distributing new publicity material in six languages for display at ports, marinas, yacht clubs and other suitable locations.
The reality in France is very different. This was borne out horrifically over the last weekend by a reporter from the Southern Evening Echo, Mr. George Chastney, who has come back, after two days in Le Havre and Deauville, with a horror story of what is actually happening in France. The recent Isle of Wight case has been widely publicised in Le Havre, where one of the two yachtsmen on a charge in the Isle of Wight lives. But Mr. Chastney reports in the Southern Evening Echo that there are no posters in Le Havre in the modern marina area or at the headquarters of


the local yacht club, to which Mr. Aubrey, one of the people to whom I have referred in the Isle of Wight case, belongs. In Le Havre the harbourmaster, Mr. Yves Tallegas, said to Mr. Chastney "If the British Government gave us leaflets, we would hand them out, and we would also put up a notice in the harbour." At one of the nearest points to our South Coast, nothing has happened, despite the soothing assurances given in ministerial answers. The British Consulate at Le Havre received about a dozen leaflets from the Central Office of Information which are still in the consulate office.
In Deauville a customs officer was quoted as saying:
For every 10 French yachtsmen who take dogs with them to Britain, there are 10 Englishmen who bring dogs here. When they arrive, they do not keep the dogs on boats—they take them ashore for walks, just like everyone else. We do not stop them because they break no French laws. But when those yachtsmen return home, do they say 'We have been to France with our dog—please put him in quarantine for six months'?".
I hope it is not unparliamentary to say "Do they hell!".
This story, appearing in the Southern Evening Echo, is corroborated by an Australian yachtsman, a Mr. Robert Kirk, who was in Deauville for six months. He is quoted as saying:
I have seen it happen several times. They take them for walks round Deauville.
There is a considerable discrepancy between what the Government hope will happen and what in fact happens. I shall send a copy of the article to the Minister and I hope that he will read it carefully. The wheels of government tend to grind slowly. It is the zebra-crossing syndrome —namely, that a child has first to be knocked down on a stretch of road before a zebra crossing is authorised. I hope that, as Mr. Chastney's report seems to suggest, the Government will not wait until rabies has entered the country before ensuring that action really is taken.
Perhaps the Government should set themselves the target of persuading our EEC partners to implement the same quarantine Regulations as we follow. That would certainly deter British citizens taking their pets abroad.
I turn to the subject of policing. Let me quote the words of the Devon County

Trading Standards Officer on the effect of policing:
Whilst we have excellent liaison with harbourmasters and Customs and Excise authorities, it is virtually impossible to monitor this volume of holiday traffic throughout the summer months to a stage where one could confidently feel that adequate control was being exercised over these vessels.
The Customs authorities welcome help from the public, but I do not believe it is sensible or realistic to expect the over-stretched Customs officials to act as an effective police force.
There are many other problems on which I shall briefly touch. There is the problem of vaccines. Will the Minister issue leaflets to vets which they can pass on to the public explaining why the Government will not allow the vaccination of pets? Is it because it is too costly, or is it unsafe to do so? Has any vaccinated dog ever contracted rabies?
There is also the problem of the urban fox. This is not a problem which can be easily dealt with, but if rabies ever finds its way into this country we shall have to deal with it. Rats are also a problem. We talk a good deal in this context about dogs and domestic pets, but there is the problem of rats to be borne in mind. In some overseas ports, de-ratting certificates are about as hard to come by as a packet of cigarettes.
Small coasters, which are often family boats, constitute a great problem. There is also the problem of oil rigs, a matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) has recently expressed concern. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this problem. It is not only yachts that present difficulties. Offences are also committed at airports and major seaports. People who smuggle animals into the country deliberately are selfish, odious, self-righteous and moronic. It is almost impossible to think of words strong enough to describe them. There is only one language they understand, and that is the language of much tougher penalties.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister replied to me in these terms on 20th May:
I think that we should consider the possibility of making offences under the rabies legislation arrestable. I do not know what answer we should come up with, but that is the kind of issue that I am having examined.


I hope that we can find some answers to it. I do not think that any hon. Member is in doubt about the gravity of the matter."— [Official Report, 20th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1708.]
I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to say how far the Prime Minister's investigations have proceeded. I should like to see a mandatory prison sentence and the destruction of all animals imported illegally. Consideration should also be given to the impounding of boats, if that is at all practicable. Since the fact that policing is impossible has been accepted, tougher penalties are the only way to prevent the disease reaching this country.
The Minister knows that I do not wish to exaggerate the problem, but my constituency is in the front line. I do not believe that our existing penalties are adequate. Although the hon. Gentleman may say that it is possible to impose a prison sentence, which in theory is true, the position in practice is that from the beginning of 1975 to date only one case has been heard on indictment, which is the only way in which prison sentences can be meted out, at a Crown court empowered to impose imprisonment. In that one case the punishment meted out was a suspended sentence and a £200 fine with £200 costs. The number of cases heard at magistrates' courts during this same period was 82. No offenders have yet been imprisoned. I think it is about time they were.

1.46 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for raising the important matter of the co-ordination of measures to prevent the importation and spread of rabies. I thank him for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech. I think we can safely say that on this issue we are all on the same side. We are all anxious to do the most we possibly can to minimise the threat of rabies in this country.
First, I should like to explain the Government's policy to deal with the rabies threat. Our primary and overriding aim is to keep rabies out of Great Britain. To achieve this we have introduced stringent import controls, compulsory quarantine requirements and severe

penalties for offenders. In addition, and far from least, we rely on a high level of public awareness. Our contingency aim, should an outbreak nevertheless occur, is to stamp it out swiftly and effectively before it takes hold. To achieve this we have drawn up contingency plans and we are now encouraging local authorities to draw up and develop their own local plans to suit local circumstances.
All this involves a tremendous amount of co-ordination at various levels, and I am happy to say that we enjoy an exceptionally high level of co-operation from all concerned. In terms of keeping rabies out of anywhere in the British Isles, we work in close concert with the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In terms of central Government, there is close co-ordination between all the Departments concerned, the two Agriculture Departments, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office, Her Majesty's Customs, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. At the ports and airports there is close co-ordination between Customs officers, the local authorities, the port health authorities and the police. We are also in touch with such bodies as the National Yacht Harbour Association and the Royal Yacht Association.
For our contingency plans there is full co-ordination between the agriculture Departments, local authorities, the police and other local organisations. We are also in close touch with the many other interested bodies and organisations—for example, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Forestry Commission and the Masters of Foxhounds Association. I believe that the Government have every right to be proud of the degree of coordination and co-operation which has been achieved.
We also set much store by our publicity campaigns to achieve a high level of awareness of the rabies risk, though we are anxious that it should be soundly based and not hysterical. On 5th May I launched a fresh publicity campaign—the Rabies Awareness Campaign 1976—and I think we can fairly claim success. Offences against our import controls have been fully reported by the whole news media. The whole country is exercising vigilance. Several offenders have been brought to book by the alertness and initiative of the man in the


street. This in itself, I suggest, has made our publicity campaign worth while.
Moreover, the courts have responded to this higher level of public awareness. Several cases have recently been reported where the magistrates have imposed the maximum penalty on summary conviction of £400. I am sure that such penalties have the overwhelming support of the public.
But our publicity campaign has not been confined to this side of the Channel. Fifteen thousand posters explaining our Regulations in six languages have been, or are being, distributed through our embassies and the Governments concerned in eight European countries to ports, marinas, yacht clubs and other suitable locations. A five-minute television film explaining our policy has been shown in most European countries. In addition, a Ministry veterinary officer is co-ordinating publicity effort in liaison with the veterinary authorities on the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts.
For example, the French naval authorities have issued standing instructions that any animal belonging to a French warship must be left behind before sailing to the United Kingdom. The French Ministry of Transport has circulated information to associations of shipping owners, the fishing industry and the unions concerned. Posters and leaflets have been circulated to nearly 500 maritime sailing clubs affiliated to the French National Sailing Federation, and there was publicity in the federation's magazine for May. Our consulates in Bordeaux, Calais, Cherbourg, Le Havre, Lille, Marseille and Strasbourg are also taking part.
Perhaps at this point I should assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully into the allegations which have been made in the Southern Evening Echo. Naturally, I am concerned at what I have heard about Le Havre.
All this points to our having achieved a greater degree of awareness on both sides of the Channel—an awareness that we now wish to maintain during the years ahead.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Yacht Harbour Association. We have met representatives recently. We have not decided to take up all their

suggestions, but they made a number of suggestions, some of which we regard as constructive and hope to take on board.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman about the availability of vaccine. The point regarding the vaccination of animals has sometimes been misunderstood. Despite the modern vaccines which are now available, none can guarantee complete immunity against rabies. Therefore, the production of such vaccines in large quantities would be wasteful of resources without providing a real safeguard.
The World Health Organisation recommends a policy of import control and quarantine for rabies-free countries, particularly countries such as our own where there is no kind boundary. The hon. Gentleman will find that the overwhelming number of veterinary surgeons in this country take the view that it would be a mistake to introduce routine vaccination. As he knows, however, we have vaccine in stock, and it would be used almost as a matter of course if an outbreak of rabies took place in this country. It would be used in any affected area. Of course, the level of use would depend on the nature of the outbreak and the contacts which the dog or cat had had with other animals and people in the locality.
I was surprised to hear that the Hampshire County Council is having to print its own leaflets. We have an excellent supply of leaflets which we make available to local authorities. I understand that some local authorities are unwittingly printing their own. They do not seem to have grasped the fact that we have leaflets which we make available. I am not sure whether this applies to Hampshire, but I will look into that point.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the police. As he gave me advance notice of this matter, I made inquiries and I understand that discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those discussions have been of a confidential nature. Therefore, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the basis of the representations to and discussions with the Home Office was.
I now turn to our contingency plans to stamp out any outbreak of rabies that


might occur. I am happy to assure the House that the Ministry has a properly-drawn-up contingency plan capable of achieving its objective. We shall keep it under continuous review and will constantly strive to improve it.
We have also consulted the local authority and police associations about local contingency plans to supplement the Ministry's plans. As a result, this week we are sending to county councils guidelines to enable them to draw up their own local contingency plans to suit local conditions. Some local authorities already have their local plans, but our guidelines will serve to achieve both a higher state of preparedness and a higher degree of co-ordination between local authorities and the police, on the one hand, and between local authorities, the police and the Government on the other. I think that that covers the point the hon. Gentleman raised when he suggested that in addition to encouraging local authorities to produce their own plans we should send out what would be in effect a model plan. These guidelines are, in effect, a model plan.
There will be full co-ordination between local authorities and the Ministry's regional and divisional veterinary staff. In the case of an outbreak, an outbreak control centre would be set up in the infected area by the Ministry's regional veterinary officer. It would keep in direct and close touch with all concerned. Direction from the centre would be given from the Ministry's Exotic Disease Control Room at Animal Health Headquarters, Tolworth, Surrey.
Perhaps I may deal with the important points the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to the need to tighten our import controls still further. We shall consider them all. Many, if adopted, would involve amending the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. We shall not hestiate to do this if it will tighten up our defences.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the maximum fine on summary conviction is £400. One of the

problems in the past has been that we have not taken advantage of this maximum. I am sure that the increased usage of the maximum is a reflection of the greater public awareness. We are looking at the question of raising that fine and at the whole question of arrest. There are powers to arrest under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, but we are looking at the question of increasing these powers.
The hon. Gentleman raised points about advice to vets. This is a fair point. There are some vets who are unclear about the position on vaccination. We are arranging for an article to appear in the Veterinary Record which will explain this matter very fully. The Veterinary Record is the main channel of communication to vets, so I hope that this will meet the hon. Gentleman's purpose.

Mr. Adley: Will the Minister please try to take on board the point about leaflets for the public? A vet cannot give a long complex article to the public. What is needed is a simple leaflet to explain to the public why they cannot have their pets vaccinated.

Mr. Strang: I shall consider that point. We have been inundated with demands for leaflets as a result of our public awareness campaign, and we welcome that. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a specialised type of leaflet. We shall consider that matter.
The Government have highly-developed policies both for keeping rabies out of the country and for stamping out any outbreak that might occur. There is coordination at the various levels of government. Above all, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is on the Opposition Front Bench—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Two o'clock.